The Bulletin of zoological nomenclature

pkey

eras
en eae

Wass
Baath

arate
et tt

fi

nO
ae

:
sia
Pe

ba

i meee TO

Aas

Ha

The

Bulletin

FAG ical
ee ce

ne. UA The Official Periodical

of the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature

Volume 60, 2003

Published on behalf of the Commission by

The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature
clo The Natural History Museum

Cromwell Road

London, SW7 5BD, U.K.

ISSN 0007-5167
© International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature

ee a echoes
hoe : ae a : s ainiialiinad aria wo} seu |

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Notices . :

The International Connmission ¢ on Prolene Nomensatngs amd 45 anbiflectiions
Addresses of members of the Commission

International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature

The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ’

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature ;

General Article
Zoological Record and registration of new names in zoology. J. Thorne .

Applications

Erbocyathus Zhuravleva, 1955 (Archaeocyatha): REP conservation. F. Debrenne,
A.Yu Zhuravlev & P.D. Kruse oy Bee

Spongia ventilabra Linnaeus, 1767 (quan Phakellia rattle “Rotiand:
proposed conservation of the specific name and designation of a Boe
B. Alvarez & R.C. Willan. :

Unio ochraceus Say, 1817 (currently Tigao eater Moline, Bivalvia): pro-
posed precedence of the specific name over Mytilus fluviatilis Gmelin, 1791.
J.R. Cordeiro 6 (heh SATE GAMMA Re SO Rea abe ARIA le le eer

RHOPALURUSINAE Bucher 1971 (Arachnida, Scorpiones, BUTHIDAE): proposed
conservation as the correct spelling to remove homonymy with RHOPALURIDAE
Stunkard, 1937 (Orthonectida). V. Fet, M.E. Petersen & G.S. Slyusarev . .

Zeriassa Pocock, 1897 (September) (Arachnida, Solifugae): PROPOR precedence
over Canentis Pavesi, 1897 (August). M.S. Harvey .

Geostiba Thomson, 1858 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation. VI. Guemor

Acmaeodera Eschscholtz, 1829 and Acmaeoderella Cobos, 1955 (Insecta, Coleoptera):
proposed conservation of usage by designation of Buprestis cylindrica Fabricius,
1775 as the type species of Acmaeodera. C.L. Bellamy & M.G. Volkovitsh

Lyda latifrons Fallén, 1808 and L. gyllenhali Dahlbom, 1835 (currently Pamphilius
latifrons and P. gyllenhali; Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed conservation of usage
of the specific names by designation of a neotype for Lyda latifrons. A. Shinohara,
M. Viitasaari & V. Vikberg . ea

Phymaturus Gravenhorst, 1837 and jLncorna: pollbnaee Moines 1782 (currently
Phymaturus palluma; Reptilia, Sauria): proposed conservation of usage of the
names by designation of a neotype for Lacerta Be aia Molina, 1782. R. Etheridge
& J.M. Savage .

Vespertilio nanus Peters, 1852 (coment Bapion itn nanus; Mennuaeilin, Crinenica):
proposed conservation of the specific name. M. Happold :

Viverra maculata Gray, 1830 (currently Genetta maculata; Mammalia, Chanter:
proposed conservation of the specific name. P. Gaubert et al. .

Comments

On the neotypification of Protists, ree Ciliates (Protozoa, Ciliophora).
J.O. Corliss; W. Song .

On the proposed conservation Bi the generic names Por ites itinte 1807, Galanen
Oken, 1815, Mussa Oken, 1815 and siiberee Blainville, 1830 (Anthozoa,
Scleractinia). M.J. Grygier

On the proposed conservation of the sieeie | name oi Aenitina Janii pe Betta &
Martinati, 1855 (currently Cecilioides janii; Mollusca, Gastropoda). R.A. Bank,
G. Falkner & E. Gittenberger; F. Giusti & G. Manganelli . oe $10:

34

48

49

51

II Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003

On the proposed conservation of usage of Chrysodema Laporte & Gory, 1835 and
Tridotaenia Deyrolle, 1864 (Insecta, Coleoptera) by the designation of C. sonnerati
Laporte & Gory, 1835 as the type species of Chrysodema. R. Westcott

On the proposed conservation of Pelastoneurus Loew, 1861 (Insecta, Diptera).
J.M. Cumming & J.R. Vockeroth. =e

On the proposed conservation of the sascihe name of INeworors als
Herrich-Schaeffer in Stainton, 1851 (currently Nemophora violella; Insecta,
Lepidoptera). E.J. van Nieukerken; Z. LaStuvka . 3

On the proposed conservation of usage of the names Phymaturus Gimeuonst 1837
and Lacerta palluma Molina, 1782 (currently Phymaturus palluma; Reptilia,
Sauria) by designation of a neotype for Lacerta palluma Molina, 1782.
R.E. Espinoza . oar Cees

Rulings of the Commission
OPINION 2016 (Case 2888). Valdivianemertes Stiasny-Wijnhoff, 1923 (Nemertea):
not conserved 3s. (fi once pe cages! 02) a MU Al ee ee are, aa a
OPINION 2017 (Case 2983). Achatinellastrum Pfeiffer, 1854 and ACHATINELLIDAE
Gulick, 1873 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): conserved
OPINION 2018 (Case 3192). BULIMINIDAE Kobelt, 1880 (vicliucen Gastropoda:
spelling emended to BULIMINUSIDAE, so removing the homonymy with BULIMINIDAE
Jones, 1875 (Rhizopoda, Foraminifera); and ENIDAE Woodward, 1903 (1880)
(Gastropoda): given precedence over BULIMINUSIDAE Kobelt, 1880. Souih
OPINION 2019 (Case 2899). Dodecaceria concharum Orsted, 1843 and Heterocirrus
fimbriatus Verrill, 1879 (currently D. fimbriata) (Annelida, Polychaeta): conser-
vation of usage of the names by the designation of a neotype for D. concharum
not approved
OPINION 2020 (Case 3078). Die lis Say, Asie @rvetcens eaten: ‘Cuina rath
Kroyer, 1841 designated as type species :
OPINION 2021 (Case 3048). NYMPHULINAE Deponchen 1845 (insect, Tepidopeey,
not given precedence over ACENTROPINAE Stephens, 1835. .
OPINION 2022 (Case 3197). Glassia Davidson, 1881 SS ao Gaee G lixageie:
Davidson, 1881 designated as the type species .
OPINION 2023 (Case 3195). Polonograptus Tsegelnjuk, 1976 (Graptotithinay
P. podoliensis Piibyl, 1983 designated as the type species . : pasha
OPINION 2024 (Case 3140). Sceloporus occidentalis Baird & Girard, 1852 (Reptilia,
Sauria): rediscovered syntypes replaced by a neotype . : Pepaman 2
OPINION 2025 (Case 3191). Pareiasaurus karpinskii Amalitzky, 1922 (ment
Scutosaurus karpinskii, Reptilia, Pareiasauria): specific name conserved . BS
OPINION 2026 (Case 3044). Generic and specific names of birds (Aves) con-
ventionally accepted as published in the Proceedings or Transactions of the
Zoological Society of London and monographic works by John Gould and other
contemporary zoologists: suppression of prior usages not approved
OPINION 2027 (Case 3010). Usage of 17 specific names based on wild species
which are pre-dated by or contemporary with those based on domestic animals
(Lepidoptera, Osteichthyes, Mammalia): conserved . we :
OPINION 2028 (Case 3073). Vespertilio pipistrellus Schreber, 1774 anal Vy pygmaeus
Leach, 1825 (currently Pipistrellus pipistrellus and P. pygmaeus; Mammalia,
Chiroptera): neotypes designated . ime So, ee ee
OPINION 2029 (Case 3020). Megalotragus van Eoenent 1932 (Mammalia,
Artiodactyla): conserved, and Alcelaphus kattwinkeli Schwarz, 1932 (currently
Megalotragus kattwinkeli): specific name conserved . p
OPINION 2030 (Case Gey eae agus Sundevall, 1845 (@Mecmncitia, Artiodactyla
conserved . CRAP T RD, AVERY SUP ALOT ABKS ) AN Aad Sone ee

Information and Instructions for Authors

33)

53

54

58

59

61

79

$1

85

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003

Notices . ae

New pplicanions to ‘the Commiesion :

The International Commission of Zoological Nemenelatire
The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature .

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature .

The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

The Commission’s website

Publications .

Funding appeal.

Applications

CLIONIDAE d’Orbigny, 1851 (Porifera, Hadromerida): proposed emendment of

spelling to CLIONAIDAE to remove homonymy with CLIONIDAE Ss 1815
(Mollusca, Pteropoda). Philippe Bouchet & Klaus Ritzler . a

Lithasia Haldeman, 1840 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation. iRussell it.
Minton & Arthur E. Bogan .

Melania curvicostata Reeve, 1861 and Keonobans ponceran(a ilteas 1862 umn,
Elimia curvicostata and E. paupercula; Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conser-
vation by designation of a neotype for M. curvicostata. Fred G. Thompson &
Elizabeth L. Mihalcik . AE er See hk wlll ccve epee Mee ag pbtee

TERMOPSIDAE Holmgren, 1911, Termopsis Heer, 1849 and Miotermes Rosen, 1913
(Insecta, Isoptera): proposed conservation of prevailing usage by the designation
of Termopsis bremii Heer, 1849 as the type species of melons Michael S. Engel,
Kumar Krishna & Christopher Boyko : SF cathy oti tit AME ee

Scorpio chilensis Molina, 1782 (currently Bothri iurus chilensis; Arachnida,
Scorpiones): proposed suppression of the specific name. Luis E. Acosta & Camilo
I. Mattoni

Rhagodes Pocock, 1397 (Coneimides Sonfueae): proposed conservation. Mark S.
Harvey .

Acmaeodera oaxacae Gricnon 1949 And Rolceta Heseriieola Dae. 1974 (nscet
Coleoptera): proposed precedence of the specific names over those of Acmaeodera
philippinensis Obenberger, 1924 and Polycesta aruensis PREDDeheel 1924 cESBECT
ively. C. L. Bellamy & R. L. Westcott

Aphodius niger Mliger, 1798 (Insecta, Coleoptera): Soronesed! conservation of the
specific name. Frank-Thorsten Krell, Darren J. Mann, Robert B. Angus & Jason
F. Maté Bh TP ey feet = VET tee Nee ce mC te a ee

Lius Deyrolle, 1865 ((tiwecte, Keolcanterays proposed conservation. C. L. Bellamy

Colobodus Agassiz, 1844 (Osteichthyes, Perleidiformes): proposed designation of

C. bassanii de Alessandri, 1910 as the type species, with designation of a neotype.
Raoul J. Mutter

Lacepéde, B. G. E. de la V., 1788, Risiaite Naturelle 5 Quadrupedes Ovpares
proposed rejection as a non-binominal work. Jay M. Savage . z

Comments

Draft proposal to emend the Code with respect to trace fossils: ae for comments.
Markus Bertling et al. ul -€3 LL

On the neotypification of Protists, agaacallly Giliates (@rwiozen, Giiophory! Jean
Dragesco; Khaled A. S. AL-Rasheid tl Py

On the proposed conservation of Cyphosoma Memngrnetin, 1837 ae aroposed
precedence of Halecia Laporte & Gory, 1837 over Pristiptera Dejean, 1833
(Insecta, Coleoptera). Vladimir Sakalian; Roman B. Holynski :

On the proposed precedence of Aegorhinus Erichson, 1834 (Insecta, @oleopterayio over
Psuchocephalus Latreille, 1828. M. A. Alonso-Zarazaga & C. H. C. Lyal

Ill

93
93
94
95
95
95
96
96
97

99

109

118

143

144

IV Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003

Nomenclatural note
The authorship and dates of Pieter Cramer’s De Uitlandsche Kapellen: a request for
comments from lepidopterists. J. E. Chainey yi ReaD

Rulings of the Commission

OPINION 2031 (Case 2710). CLAvIDAE McCrady, 1859 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa) and
CLAVINAE Casey, 1904 (Mollusca, : ae proposal to remove the
homonymy not approved

OPINION 2032 (Case 3148). CLARIIDAE Kenioves IMenkevich & Siidonay, 1990
(Rotifera): spelling emended to CLARIAIDAE so removing homonymy with
CLARIIDAE Bonaparte, 1846 (Osteichthyes, Siluriformes) . ;

OPINION 2033 (Case 3156). Chiton lepidus Reuss, 1860 Cuca, Tepidvahiiene
lepida; Mollusca, Polyplacophora): specific name conserved.

OPINION 2034 (Case 3087). Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821: conserved by aplecemien:
of the lectotype of Cyclostoma acutum Draparnaud, 1805 (currently Hydrobia
acuta; Mollusca, Gastropoda) with a neotype; Ventrosia Radoman, 1977: Turbo
ventrosus Montagu, 1803 designated as the type species; and HYDROBIINA Mulsant,
1844 (Coleoptera): spelling emended to HYDROBIUSINA, so removing the
homonymy with HyDROBUDAE Troschel, 1857 (Gastropoda). :

OPINION 2035 (Case 3146). Valvata minuta Draparnaud, 1805 (Guameniily Helowasfeani

Neohoratia or Islamia minuta; Mollusca, OE ke conserved by Seas Ma

of the lectotype by a neotype aia 2

OPINION 2036 (Case 3153). HIPPOPODIIDAE Con, 1969 (Mollusca, Bia: -gpalline

emended to HIPPOPODIUMIDAE, so removing the SSH ke with HIPPOPODIIDAE

KO6lliker, 1853 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa) :

OPINION 2037 (Cases 3120 and 3120a). LIOCHELIDAE eed & Bechiy? 2001 (1879)

(Scorpiones): adopted as a valid substitute name for ISCHNURIDAE Simon, 1879 in

order to remove homonymy with ISCHNURINAE Fraser, 1857 (Insecta, Odonata) .

OPINION 2038 (Case 3155). MACROTERMITINAE Kemner, 1934 (Insecta, Isoptera):

given precedence over ACNTHOTERMITINAE Sj6stedt, 1926 . :

OPINION 2039 (Case 3159). Staphylinus maculosus and S. violaceus Grnennonn

1802 (currently Platydracus maculosus and P. violaceus; Insecta, Coleoptera):

usage of the specific names conserved . é

OPINION 2040 (Case 3190). Chlorops meigenii Teen 1866 (ieesin. Diptera

specific name conserved

OPINION 2041 (Case 3081). Wincia ‘othr bane hy Dens & Schiffeemillers 1775
(currently Gillmeria or Platyptilia ochrodactyla; Insecta, Lepidoptera): specific
name conserved by the designation of a neotype for Phalaena tetradactyla
Linnaeus, 1758 cp EERE Ea CRE Ve” ee

OPINION 2042 (Case 3160). ipmanuiies petropolitana Dybowski, 1877 mad
Diplotrypa petropolitana Nicholson, 1879 (Bryozoa): conserved :

OPINION 2043 (Case 3113). Betta Bleeker, 1850 (Osteichthyes, peretomnes): sessile
names conserved by the suppression of Micracanthus marchei Sauvage, 1879 .

OPINION 2044 (Case 3172). Leptodactylus chaquensis Cei, 1950 (Amphibia, Anura):
specific name conserved Sh

OPINION 2045 (Case 3165). Pantesmalios isilop ydekker, 1885 (Reptilia,
Archosauria): lectotype replaced by a neotype sh (eae &

Information and Instructions for Authors

Notices . F :

New ANanifeations to ‘the Commission 6

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenelninne
The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature .

145

147

149

151

155

157

159

162

164

166

167
169
171
173
174
176
177
177

179
179

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature .
The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

The Commission’s website

Publications .

Funding appeal.

Applications

Hastigerinella Cushman, 1927 and Clavigerinella Bolli, Loeblich & Tappan, 1957
(Rhizopoda, Foraminiferida): proposed conservation of usage by designation
of Hastigerina digitata Rhumbler, 1911 as the type species of Hastigerinella.
H. Coxall .

Titanodamon johnstonii Bocce 1894 (Gummi Darien “polit Avadnmidl,
Amblypygi): proposed conservation of the specific name. P. Weygoldt

Leptusa Kraatz, 1856 and Cyllopisalia Pace, 1982 (Insecta, peices proposed
conservation. V. I. Gusarov & L. H. Herman .

Curculio picipes Marsham, 1802 (currently Procas picipes; Taso, ‘Csleanien):
proposed conservation of the specific name. R. T. Thompson .

Thereva Latreille, 1797 and Phasia Latreille, 1804 (Insecta, Diana Dropored
conservation of usage by designation of Musca plebeja Linnaeus, 1758 as the type
species of Thereva. K. C. Holston, M. E. Irwin & F. C. Thompson

Rhamphomyia (Rhamphomyia) Meigen, 1822 and Rhamphomyia (Parar. Iesmoltatiny #2)
Frey, 1922 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed conservation of usage of the subgeneric
names by designation of Empis sulcata Meigen, 1804 as the type ARSE of
Rhamphomyia. M. Bartak & B. J. Sinclair j

Macropodus concolor Ahl\, 1937 (Osteichthyes, Rensiitommes) anamosedl conservation
of the specific name. I. Schindler & W. Staeck ;

Chitra chitra Nutaphand, 1986 (Reptilia, Trastudines) moped srecedenee oF
the specific name over that of Chitra selenkae Jaekel, 1911. W. P. McCord &
P. C. H. Pritchard p

Palaeortyx phasianoides Milne- Bdwenee 1869 (Axes. IGalittonmes): proposed conser-
vation of usage of the specific name by the designation of a neotype. U. B. Gohlich
& C. Mourer-Chauvire . aut :

Comments

On the draft proposal to emend the Code with respect to trace fossils. P. K. Tubbs.

On the neotypification of Protists, especially Ciliates (Protozoa, Sees
M. A. Sleigh; I. Domingos da Silva Neto; J. Sikora. oy AAA

On the proposed conservation of usage of Acmaeodera Recheehiolizs 1829 and
Acmaeoderella Cobos, 1955 (Insecta, Coleoptera) by designation of Buprestis
cylindrica Fabricius, 1775 as the type species of Acmaeodera. V. Sakalian;:
E. C. MacRae; S. Bily; A. Sundholm .

On the proposed precedence of Ovula a tiana Paws, 1859 0 over Cyr 'ypraea “eon
J. de C. Sowerby in Dixon, 1850. J. A. Todd . :

On the proposed conservation of the usage of the names Biyiacrory us Gaawentnons,
1838 and Lacerta palluma Molina, 1782 (currently Phymaturus palluma;
Reptilia, Sauria) by eoenaen ofa eee for Lacerta palluma Molina, 1782.
H. M. Smith. :

On the proposed conservation of the erecific name oF Matnonodies aaa Ab. 1937
(Osteichthyes, Perciformes). H.-J. Paepke; A. Zarske .

Rulings of the Commission
OPINION 2046 (Case 3185). Criconema Hofmanner & Menzel, 1914 (Nematoda):
Eubostrichus guernei Certes, 1899 designated as the type species . 24 Hae

VI Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003

OPINION 2047 (Case 2652). CHORISTIDAE Verrill, 1882 (Mollusca, Gastropoda):
spelling emended to CHORISTEIDAE, so removing the homonymy with CHORISTIDAE
Esben-Petersen, 1915 (Insecta, Mecoptera) . : upton plykeeae

OPINION 2048 (Case 3212). Thalassema taenioides eedte, 1904 (currently [keda
taenioides; Echiura): specific name conserved

OPINION 2049 (Case 3174). Pardosa C. L. Koch, 1847 and Maweease Sao, 1885
(Arachnida, Araneae): usage conserved by the peuenenee of Lycosa alacris
C. L. Koch, 1833 as the type species of Pardosa .

OPINION 2050 (Case 3189). Ammotrecha Banks, 1900 atl rroneenale Rocwer
1934 (Arachnida, Solifugae): usage conserved by the designation of Galeodes
linbata Lucas, 1835 as the type species of Ammotrecha; and Eremobates Banks,
1900 and Eremorhax Roewer, 1934: usage conserved by the designation of
Galeodes pallipes Say, 1823 as the type species of Eremobates . :

OPINION 2051 (Case 3179). Halacarus Gosse, 1855, H. ctenopus Gosse, 1855 anal

Thalassarachna Packard, 1871 (Arachnida, Acari): usage of the names conserved

by the designation of a neotype for H. ctenopus . :

OPINION 2052 (Case 3183). Pagurus clypeatus Fabricius, 1787 (cumenily Counobite

clypeatus; Crustacea, Decapoda): usage conserved by designation of a neotype .

OPINION 2053 (Case 3207). STAPHYLINIDAE Latreille, 1804 (Insecta, Coleoptera):

65 specific names conserved . aye

OPINION 2054 (Case 3201). Scarabaeus punctatus avatlers 1789 (Caren Baader

bidens punctatus; Insecta, Coleoptera): specific name conserved i

OPINION 2055 (Case 3176). Ptinus tectus Boieldieu, 1856 (Insecta, Callens:

usage of the specific name conserved

OPINION 2056 (Case 3186). Squalus edwar a (quent) Haplolesharas Chia Aly

Chondrichthyes, Carcharhiniformes): attributed to Schinz, 1822 and edwardsii

conserved as the correct original spelling of the specific name .

OPINION 2057 (Case 3028). ere Nardo, 1827 Se ae Coiinodioa-
tiformes): conserved .

OPINION 2058 (Case 2661). MACROPODINAE ielocdenian 1948 (Osteichthyes,
Perciformes): spelling emended to MACROPODUSINAE so removing the homonymy
with MACROPODINAE Gray, 1821 (Mammalia, Marsupialia) .

OPINION 2059 (Case 275). Camelus Linnaeus, 1758 (Mammalia, Nailed)
Camelus bactrianus Linnaeus, 1758 designated as the type species 1. ae

Book Review .

Hooper, J. N. A. and van Soest, R. W. M. 2002. Systema Porifera. A guide to the
classification of Sponges. 2 vols. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York,
Boston, Dordrecht, London, Moscow. ISBN 0-306-47260-0. D. J. Patterson .

Information and Instructions for Authors

Notices . :

New Meplcanonent to the @onmicion

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenakime aad its 5 pulbliieaiozs
Declaration 44 — Amendment of Article 74.7.3 .

Financial Report for 2002

Applications

Conidophrys Chatton & Lwoff, 1934 (Ciliophora, Pilisuctorida): proposed conserva-
tion. I.V. Dovgal . ete Sous Gate ae eae aos age ete ie rete emma

Nahecaris Jaekel, 1921 (Malacostraca, Phyllocarida, Archaeostraca): proposed
precedence over Dilophaspis Traquair in Walther, 1903. D.E.G. Briggs &
C. Bartels . ete sag? cine ens Ped ene ae eee

266

269

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003

Libellula aenea Linnaeus, 1758 (currently Cordulia aenea) and L. flavomaculata
Vander Linden, 1825 (currently Somatochlora flavomaculata; Insecta, Odonata):
proposed conservation of usage of the specific names by the replacement of
the lectotype of L. aenea with a newly designated lectotype. R. Jédicke &
J. van Tol

NEMONYCHIDAE Bedel, Nowerilnar 1882 iincectal @nleanicra): pronoccd Precedence
over CIMBERIDIDAE Gozis, March 1882, and Cimberis Gozis, 1881: gj uekoes
conservation. C.H.C. Lyal & M.A. Alonso-Zarazaga .

Microsaurus Dejean, 1833 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation oP usage
by designation of Staphylinus ochripennis Ménétries, 1832 as the type species.
A. Smetana . 2 TSIREE she ae aNy oh MS Ge

Hydroporus foveolatus fear 1839 (asec, Colonie): proposed precedence of the
specific name over Hydroporus nivalis Heer, 1839. H.V. Shaverdo & M.A. Jach .

Thinobius crinifer Smetana, 1959 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of the
specific name. M. Schiilke. eA Ai RA OL ec Ra ae Mosby ya)

Nematois australis Heydenreich, 1851 (currently Adela australis; Insecta, Lepido-
ptera): proposed precedence over Tinea aldrovandella Villers, 1789. M.V. Kozlov
& E.J. van Nieukerken . B ne sho aga lee MLA 6 ERS ane Oey Mir eae ie an

ISOMETRINAE Clark, 1917 (Echinodermata, Crinoidea): proposed emendation of
spelling to ISOMETRAINAE to remove homonymy with ISOMETRINAE Kraepelin, 1891
(Arachnida, Scorpiones). V. Fet & C. Messing

Comments

On Zoological Record and registration of new names in zoology. D.J. Patterson,
D. Remsen & C. Norton .

On the proposed conservation of the saadite: name > of and desiioneition of a neo-
type for Spongia ventilabrum Linnaeus, 1767 oy Phakellia ventilabrum;
Porifera). B. Alvarez & R.C. Willan.

On the proposed conservation of Melania curvicostata Rese. “1861 and Cortabasts
paupercula Lea, 1862 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) by the designation of a neotype for
Melania curvicostata (Reeve, 1861). W.E. Holznagel; L.B. Holthuis; A.E. Bogan;
D.L. Graf; R.L. Minton; D. Kadolsky.

On the proposed conservation of prevailing usage oF TERMOPSIDAE Slelanenan,
1911, Termapsis Heer, 1849 and Miotermes Rosen, 1913 (Insecta, Isoptera).
M.A. Alonso-Zarazaga . :

On the proposed precedence of Pollavaanon Kroy 1819 (July) (isesia, Goleapters)
over Odonteus Samouelle, 1819 (June). F.-T. Krell, S. Ziani & A. Ballerio .

On the proposed conservation of the specific name Papilio eurymedon Lucas, 1852
(Insecta, Lepidoptera). A. Wakeham-Dawson; N.L. Evenhuis .

On the proposed conservation of usage of the names Phymaturus Gvonlnonsi, 1837
and Lacerta palluma Molina, 1782 (currently Phymaturus palluma; Reptilia,
Sauria) by Se of a neotype for Lacerta ee A. Veloso, H. Nunez &
J.M. Cei :

On the proposed conservation of the spastic name oot Veron nol nanus 5 Baers, 1852
(currently Pipistrellus nanus; Mammalia, Chiroptera). V. Van Cakenberghe

Indexes, etc.

Authors in volume 60 (2003)

Names placed on the Official Lists anal Tindlancs | in stings oF the Commission
published in volume 60 (2003) . : :

Key names in Applications and Comments mublichedh: in agin 60 (2003) .

Information and Instructions for Authors

Publication dates and pagination of volume 60 (2003).

Instructions to binder .

Table of Contents of volume 60 (2003)

Vil

272

297

300

gue

ieee Esse) Ga nerve ak Meare ATRIA

ton =
resi ) i
7 ae :

eee a ae vee me
ke e eres | paul

: ‘ a ree

mE dd ‘Athoe

ee ine te Tl) janndian dt 0 :

t? =5i by i maheoted
i A>

bare aa rg ce
vijieer cee auc: eR OCs yhoo

Pa
t E Dy
vet
\e soriig erent,
. ; nied i gs steal
& on see ;
j 1 eo be
¢ ‘
cat

v: ¥
$ sy Sebi a Le) ; eee

Lath. Gy

ee, By SBC. wailed saga
o ; i | ot .
' c = ae
cet ation BuO ‘iat i
eA : i f Sn nk eayhantl 2g} i
FE % ite cd om

, a ~) ath ty seadie a MoSbal- baw i a
. Tas ; : CAINS) On

vrais oped
iS, Mew lalla

; af a
7 ‘ ‘PUN:

FAR ere «0!

The

Bulletin

Fdgical
Nomenclature

aa
ie rea *

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

The Bulletin is published four times a year for the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, a
charity (no. 211944) registered in England. The annual subscription for 2003 is £123
or $220, postage included; individual subscribers for personal use are offered a
subscription of £61 or $110. All manuscripts, letters and orders should be sent to:
The Executive Secretary,
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,
c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road,
London, SW7 S5BD, U.K. (Tel. 020 7942 5653)
(e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk)
(http://www.iczn.org)

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Officers

President Dr N. L. Evenhuis (U.S. A.)

Vice-President Dr W. N. Eschmeyer (U.S. A.)

Executive Secretary Dr A. Wakeham-Dawson (U.K.)

Members

Dr M. Alonso-Zarazaga Prof Dr G. Lamas (Peru; Lepidoptera)

(Spain; Coleoptera) Dr E. Macpherson (Spain; Crustacea)
Prof W. J. Bock (U.S.A.; Ornithology) Dr V. Mahnert

Prof Dr W. Bohme (Switzerland; Ichthyology)
(Germany; Amphibia, Reptilia) Prof U. R. Martins de Souza

Prof P. Bouchet (France; Mollusca) (Brazil; Coleoptera)

Prof D. J. Brothers Prof S. F. Mawatari (Japan; Bryozoa)
(South Africa; Hymenoptera) Prof A. Minelli (Italy; Myriapoda)

Dr D. R. Calder (Canada; Cnidaria) Dr P. K. L. Ng (Singapore;

Dr H. G. Cogger (Australia; Herpetology) Crustacea, Ichthyology)

Prof C. Dupuis (France; Heteroptera) Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark; Bryozoa)

Dr W. N. Eschmeyer Dr L. Papp (Hungary; Diptera)

(U.S.A4.; Ichthyology) ~ Prof D. J. Patterson (Australia; Protista)
Dr N. L. Evenhuis (U.S.A.; Diptera) - Dr G. Rosenberg (U.S.A.; Mollusca)

Prof R. A. Fortey (U.K.; Trilobita) Prof D. X. Song (China; Hirudinea)
Dr R. B. Halliday (Australia; Acari) Prof P. Stys
Dr I. M. Kerzhner (Russia; Heteroptera) (Czech Republic; Heteroptera)
Prof Dr O. Kraus Mr J. van Tol

(Germany, Arachnology) (The Netherlands; Odonata)
Secretariat

Dr A. Wakeham-Dawson (Executive Secretary and Editor)
Mrs S. Morris (Zoologist)

Mr J. D. D. Smith (Scientific Administrator)

Dr P. K. Tubbs (Nomenclatural Consultant)

Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature
The Earl of Cranbrook (Chairman)
Dr M. K. Howarth (Secretary and Managing Director)

© International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 2002

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 1

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

ales ley,
MAY 45.

Volume 60, part | (pp. 1-92) 31 March 2003

Notices

(a) Invitation to comment. The Commission is authorised to vote on applications
published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after their publi-
cation but this period is normally extended to enable comments to be submitted.
Any zoologist who wishes to comment on any of the applications is invited to
send his or her contribution to the Commission’s Executive Secretary as quickly as
possible.

(b) Invitation to contribute general articles. The Bulletin comprises mainly
applications concerning names of particular animals or groups of animals,
resulting comments and the Commission’s eventual rulings (Opinions). Proposed
emendments to the Code are also published for discussion.

In addition, papers or notes of a more general nature are actively welcomed. These
should raise nomenclatural issues, although they may well deal with taxonomic
matters for illustrative purposes. It should be the aim of such contributions to interest
an audience wider than some small group of specialists.

(c) Receipt of new applications. The following new applications have been received
since going to press for volume 59, part 4 (19 December 2002). Under Article 82 of
the Code, existing usage is to be maintained until the ruling of the Commission is
published.

Case 3246. Scorpio chilensis Molina, 1782 (currently Bothriurus chilensis;
Arachnida, Scorpiones): proposed suppression of the specific name. L.E. Acosta &
C.J. Mattoni.

Case 3254. Aphodius niger Illiger, 1798 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed
conservation of the specific name. F.-T. Krell, D.J. Mann, R.B. Angus & J.F. Mate.

Case 3258. Acmaeodera Eschscholtz, 1829 and Acmaeoderella Cobos, 1955
(Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of usage by designation of Buprestis
cylindrica Fabricius, 1775 as the type species of Acmaeodera. C.L. Bellamy & M.G.
Volkovitsh.

Case 3259. Eristalis Latreille, 1804 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed confirmation that
the gender is feminine; Musca nemorum Linnaeus, 1758, M. arbustorum Linnaeus,
1758 and M. horticola De Geer, 1776 (currently Eristalis nemorum, E. arbustorum and
E. horticola): proposed conservation of usage of the specific names by designation of
neotypes. P. Chandler, A. Wakeham-Dawson & A. McCullough.

Case 3260. Titanodamon johnstonii Pocock, 1894 (currently Damon johnstonii;
Arachnida, Amblypygi): proposed conservation of the specific name. P. Weygoldt.

Case 3262. Nautilus spengleri Gmelin, 1791 (Foraminiferida): proposed conser-
vation of the usage of the specific name by designation of a neotype. W. Renema &
J. Hohenegger.

iT)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003

Case 3263. Octopus hummelincki Adam, 1936 (Mollusca, Cephalopoda): Proposed
conservation of the specific name. I.G. Gleadall.

(d) Rulings of the Commission. Each Opinion published in the Bulletin constitutes
an official ruling of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, by
virtue of the votes recorded, and comes into force on the day of publication of the
Bulletin.

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and its
publications

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature was established in
1895 by the third International Congress of Zoology, and at present consists of 25
zoologists from 20 countries whose interests cover most of the principal divisions
(including palaeontology) of the animal kingdom. The Commission is under the
auspices of the International Union of Biological Sciences (IUBS), and members are
elected by secret ballot of zoologists attending General Assemblies of IUBS or
Congresses of its associated bodies or other appropriate Congresses. Casual vacan-
cies may be filled between Congresses. Nominations for membership may be sent to
the Commission Secretariat at any time.

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature has one fundamental aim,
which is to provide ‘the maximum universality and continuity in the scientific names
of animals compatible with the freedom of scientists to classify animals according
to taxonomic judgements’. The Fourth Edition of the Code was published in 1999
by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, acting on behalf of the
Commission; its provisions came into effect on 1 January 2000 and supersede
those of the previous (1985) edition. Official texts are available in English, Chinese
(traditional), French, German, Japanese, Russian, Spanish and Ukrainian, and other
texts are in preparation. Details of how to obtain the Code are given on page 6.

Observance of the rules in the Code enables a zoologist to arrive at the valid name
for any animal taxon between and including the ranks of subspecies and superfamily.
Its provisions can be waived or modified in their-application to a particular case when
strict adherence would cause confusion; however, this must never be done by an
individual but only by the Commission, acting on behalf of all zoologists. The
Commission takes such action in response to proposals submitted to it; applications
should follow the instructions in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, and
assistance will be given by the Secretariat.

The Bulletin is published four times each year. The subscription for volume 60 for
2003 is £123 or $220; individual subscribers requiring the Bulletin for their personal use
are offered a reduced price of £61 or $110. The Bulletin contains applications for
Commission action, as described above; their publication is an invitation for any
person to contribute comments or counter-suggestions, which may be published.
Abstracts of applications are also placed on the Commission’s website (www.iczn.org).
The Commission makes a ruling (called an Opinion) on a case only after a suitable
period for comments; all Opinions are published in the Bulletin and their titles and
abstracts are given on the Commission website. The Bulletin also contains articles and

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 3

notes relevant to zoological nomenclature; such contributions are invited and should be
sent tc the Executive Secretary.

The Commission’s rulings are summarised in the Official Lists and Indexes of
Names and Works in Zoology. A single volume covering the period 1895-1985 was
published in 1987, and a Supplement updating the period to 2000 was published in
March 2001.

In addition to dealing with applications and other formal matters, the Com-
mission’s Secretariat is willing to help with advice on any question which may have
nomenclatural (as distinct from purely taxonomic) implications. However, as from
July 2002 requests for help and advice on nomenclatural issues can be made direct to
Commissioners via the Internet. To register free of charge with the Commission’s
Discussion List send an e-mail to ‘join-iczn-list@lyris.bishopmuseum.org’, leaving
the subject line and body of the message blank (for further details see BZN 59:
234).

The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature is a charity and a not-for-
profit company registered in the U.K. The Secretariat of the Commission is based in
London, and the Trust is established there to handle the financial and management
affairs of the Commission. Income from the sale of publications covers less than half
the costs of the service given to zoology by the Commission. Financial support is
given by academies, research councils, institutions and societies from a number of
countries, and also by individuals; despite this assistance the level of income remains
a severe restraint. Donations to the Trust are gratefully received and attention is
drawn to the possible tax advantage of legacies.

For a more detailed discussion of the Commission and its activities and pub-
lications see BZN 48: 295-299 (December 1991). A Centenary History of the
Commission — Towards Stability in the Names of Animals — describes the development
of zoological nomenclature and the role of the Commission; it was published in
1995.

The books listed above may be ordered from: ITZN, c/o The Natural History
Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk) or
AAZN, MRC-159, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C.
20560-0159, U.S.A. (e-mail: smith.davidg@nmnh.si.edu).

Addresses of members of the Commission

Dr M. ALONSO-ZARAZAGA Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, José
Gutiérrez Abascal 2, E-28006 Madrid, Spain

Prof W.J. BOCK Department of Biological Sciences, Columbia University, New York,
NY 10027-7004, U.S.A.

Prof Dr W. BOHME Zoologisches Forschungsinstitut und Museum Alexander Koenig,
Adenauerallee 160, D-53113 Bonn 1, Germany

Prof P. BOUCHET Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 55 rue de Buffon, 75005
Paris, France (Councillor)

Prof D.J. BROTHERS Department of Zoology and Entomology, University of Natal
Pietermaritzburg, Private Bag X01, Scottsville, 3209 South Africa (Councillor)

Dr D.R. CALDER Royal Ontario Museum, 100 Queen's Park, Toronto, Ontario,
Canada M5S 2C6

4 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003

Dr W.N. ESCHMEYER Department of Ichthyology, California Academy of Sciences,
Golden Gate Park, San Francisco, California 94118-4599, U.S.A. (Vice-President)
Dr N.L. EVENHUIS Bishop Museum, 1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, Hawaii
96817-2704, U.S.A. (President)

Prof R:A. FORTEY The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London
SW7 SBD, U.K.

Dr R.B. HALLIDAY CSIRO Division of Entomology, G.P.O. Box 1700, Canberra,
A.C.T. 2601, Australia

DrI.M. KERZHNER Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg
199034, Russia (Councillor)

Prof Dr G. LAMAS Museo de Historia Natural, Universidad Nacional Mayor de
San Marcos, Apartado 14-0434, Lima-14, Peru

Dr E. MACPHERSON Centro d’Estudios Avancats de Blanes (C.S.I.C.), Cami de
Santa Barbara s/n, 17300 Blanes, Girona, Spain

Dr V. MAHNERT Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle, Case postale 6434, CH-1211
Genéve 6, Switzerland

Prof U.R. MARTINS DE SOUZA Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de Sao Paulo,
Caixa Postal 42694, 04299-970 Sao Paulo, Brazil

Prof S.F. MAWATARI Zoological Institute, Faculty of Science, Hokkaido
University, Sapporo 060, Japan

Prof A. MINELLI Dipartimento di Biologia, Universita di Padova, Via Trieste 75,
35121 Padova, Italy i

Dr P.K.L. NG Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore,
Kent Ridge, Singapore 119260

Dr C. NIELSEN Zoologisk Museum, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Kébenhayn,
Denmark

Dr L. PAPP Hungarian Museum of Natural History, Baross utca 13, H-1088
Budapest, Hungary

Prof D.J. PATTERSON School of Biological Sciences, University of Sydney, N.S. W.
2006, Australia

Dr G. ROSENBERG Academy of, Natural Sciences, 1900. Benjamin Franklin
Parkway, Philadelphia, PA 19103-1195, U.S.A.

Prof D.X. SONG College of Life Sciences, Hebei.University, Baoding, Hebei Province,
071002 China

Prof P. STYS Department of Zoology, Charles University, Viniénd 7, 128 44 Praha 2,
Czech Republic

Mr J. VAN TOL Naturalis, Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, Darwinweg 3,
2333 CR Leiden, The Netherlands

International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature

Members

The Earl of Cranbrook (Chairman) (U.K.) (Management Committee)

Dr M.K. Howarth (Secretary and Managing Director) (U.K.) (Management
Committee) ‘

Dr H.M.F.P. André (Belgium)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003

Dr N.J. Aebischer (U.K.)

Dr M.N. Arai (Canada)

Dr Keiji Baba (Japan)

Prof Per Brinck (Sweden)

Prof D.J. Brothers (South Africa)

Prof J.H. Callomon (U.K.) (Management Committee)
Sir Neil Chalmers (U.K.)

Prof W.T. Chang (China)

Dr J.A. Compton (U.K.)

Mr M.N. Dadd (U.K.)

Prof C.S.F. Easmon (U.K) (Management Committee)
Dr N.L. Evenhuis (U.S.A.) (Management Committee)
Prof J. Forest (France)

Prof R.A. Fortey (U.K.) (Management Committee)
Dr B.F. Kensley (U.S.A.)

Prof Dr O. Kraus (Germany)

Dr Ch. Kropf (Switzerland)

Dr M. Luc (France)

Mr A. McCullough (U.K.)

Dr E. Macpherson (Spain)

Prof A. Minelli (Italy)

Dr J.L. Norenburg (U.S.A.)

Dr I.W.B. Nye (U.K.)

Dr M.J. Oates (U.K.)

Dr E.P.F. Rose (U.K.) (Management Committee)
Prof F.R. Schram (The Netherlands)

Dr P.K. Tubbs (U.K.) (Management Committee)

The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Subscriptions for volume 60 (for 2003) of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
are now due. The subscription price is £ 123 or US$ 220; individual zoologists
wishing to subscribe to the Bulletin for their own personal use are offered a 50%
discount, reducing the subscription to £ 61 or US$ 110. Cheques should be made out
to ‘ITZN’ and sent to: I.T.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road,

London SW7 5BD, U.K.

Four issues of the Bulletin are published each year at the end of March, June and
September and the third week of December. They are sent to subscribers by
Accelerated Surface Post which should reach all subscribers in less than three weeks

of publication.

6 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature

The extensively revised 4th Edition of the International Code of Zoological
Nomenclature (ISBN 0 85301 006 4) was published (in a bilingual volume in English
and French) in August 1999. It came into effect on 1 January 2000 and entirely
supersedes the 3rd (1985) edition.

The price of the English and French volume of the 4th Edition is £40 or $65; the
following discounts are offered:

Individual members of a scientific society are offered a discount of 25% (price £30
or $48); the name and address of the society should be given.

Individual members of the American or European Associations for Zoological
Nomenclature are offered a discount of 40% (price £24 or $39).

Postgraduate or undergraduate students are offered a discount of 25% (price £30 or
$48); the name and address of the student’s supervisor should be given.

Institutions or agents buying 5 or more copies are offered a 25% discount (price £30
or $48 for each copy).

Prices include surface postage; for Airmail please add £2 or $3 per copy.

Copies may be ordered from: ITZN, c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell
Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk), or AAZN, Attn. D.G.
Smith, MRC-159, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C.
20560-0159, U.S.A. (e-mail: smith.davidg@nmnh.si.edu).

Payment should accompany orders. Cheques should be made out to “ITZN’ (in
sterling or dollars) or to ‘AAZN’ (in dollars only). Payment to ITZN (but not to
AAZN) can also be made by Visa or MasterCard giving the cardholder’s number,
name and address and the expiry date.

Individual purchasers of the Code are offered a 50% discount on the following
publication for personal use:

Towards Stability in the Names of Animals—a History of the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1S95—1995 (1995) — reduced from £30 to £15
and from $50 to $25;

Official texts of the Code in several languages have been authorized by the
Commission, and all (including English and French) are equal in authority. Chinese
(traditional), German, Japanese, Russian and Spanish texts have now been published
and others are planned. Details of price and how to buy the published texts can be
obtained from the followimg e-mail addresses:

Chinese — wenhua@oceantaiwan.com

German — books@insecta.de

Japanese — tomokuni@kahaku.go.jp

Russian — kim@ik3599.spb.edu

Spanish — menaz39@munen.csic.es

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 7

Zoological Record and registration of new names in zoology

Joan Thorne (Editor, Zoological Record)

BIOSIS UK, 54 Micklegate, York, North Yorkshire YOI 6WF, U.K.
(e-mail: jthorne@york.biosis.org)

Abstract. BIOSIS is offering, through Zoological Record (ZR), to provide a database
register of new names in zoology. Inclusion of a name in this register would not
indicate or imply its validity or other nomenclatural status. The register would
provide the raw material needed by those seeking to establish which new zoological
species, genera or families have recently been described and named. The register
would also include those names that appear to be unavailable under the Code (where
possible they would be indicated as such), but would not arbitrate in matters relating
to the availability or validity of the names. Expert taxonomists, calling on the
assistance of the Commission where necessary, would determine which names were
available and valid for use in a particular group of animals. ZR’s coverage of new
names is well over 90% complete and takes place within two weeks of receipt of new
publications by ZR or within three to six weeks of receipt of new publications by
source libraries. Double-checking ensures that far less than one percent of 20,000 new
animal names registered each year is likely to be recorded incorrectly. There is no
existing registration source that is more up-to-date or complete. The register would
be available on line free of charge to anyone who wished to check on the existence of
a name and would provide a sound basis for a full nomenclatural repository.
However, the register could only be as comprehensive as the community chooses to
make it. A comprehensive register could be achieved if zoologists ensured that ZR
was aware of all new works containing new names. The 10% of new names not
currently registered by ZR because of the obscurity of the publications in which they
appear (or other reasons) could be eliminated if the Code required all new names to
be registered. Therefore, it is proposed that Recommendation 8A of the Code (which
recommends that authors should send a copy of a work containing a new name or
names to ZR) be revised to become a mandatory Article.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; register of new names; BIOSIS; Zoological
Record.

Introduction

This article was written following the extensive discussions leading up to the
publication in 1999 of the Fourth Edition of the International Code of Zoological
Nomenclature and more recently with the Commission’s Executive Secretary on a
possible role for Zoological Record (ZR) in ‘registering’ new names in zoology.
During the preparation of the paper, the concept of a centralized archive/database for
taxonomists was also raised in the journal Nature (Nature, 2002). This stimulated
extensive exchanges on the TAXACOM e-mail discussion list. I hope that the views
on names registration expressed in the current paper will be a valuable addition to the
discussion.

8 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003

In the current proposal, BIOSIS is offering the means to collect all new animal
names and, acting as a neutral host, make them available free of charge to all who
need to use them. In BIOSIS’s view, this would be a means of registering new names
and would provide a firm foundation for Nature’s more extensive concept of a
centralized repository of nomenclature. If I have understood the latter correctly, this
would involve extending the basic names database to include additional data, such as
description, type locality, holotype location, links to the bibliographic citation,
abstract or the full text of the publication. Developing such systems is one of
BIOSIS’s core activities and, although BIOSIS does not have the funds to offer to
implement this more extensive concept on its own, it would be willing to participate
in any suitable cooperative arrangements that might be developed in the zoological
community.

It is important to note that the word ‘registration’, as used in the current paper, is
simply a label to describe a proposal for providing a comprehensive database of new
names in zoology. Inclusion of a name in this register would not indicate its validity
or other nomenclatural status. The register would provide the raw material needed by
those seeking to find out what species, genera or families had been described and
named. The expert taxonomists, calling on the assistance of the Commission where
necessary, would determine which names were valid for use in a particular group of
animals.

The current situation

The value of a central renlesicdl names resource is generally accepted but,
unfortunately, the means of providing it is not. Recognizing this situation, Nature
(Nature, 2002) has recently taken ‘a small step towards a database for taxonomists’.
A new policy, started in August 2002, requires authors of papers which are accepted
for publication in Nature and which contain ‘the formal nomenclature and descrip-
tion of species’ to send a preprint or an electronic copy to the Linnean Society of
London. With this action, Nature has made the first move towards a central
repository for taxonomic data, although the Linnean Society does not currently have
an established mechanism to act as a repository of this nature. We applaud this
initiative. However, as the ZR is already in existence as just such a repository,
BIOSIS would like to explore possible options which could develop the idea further
without duplicating already existing efforts.

New names in Zoological Record (ZR)

In 1995, the discussion draft of the current (fourth) edition of the Code included
an Article that proposed a process of ‘international notification’ of new names.
This was to be achieved by recording them in ZR. As part of this proposal,
BIOSIS developed the Index to Organism Names (ION; http://www.biosis.org.uk/
free_resources/ion.html), a free name search tool that enables any user to check
whether a name has been used. All zoological names indexed in ZR since 1978 were
added to this database, together with names from other associated organism groups
to enhance its value to the wider scientific community. ION 1s still freely available and
is currently being enhanced with improved search mechanisms and additional
content.

However, the ‘notification’ proposal was at the time unacceptable to the zoological
community for a number of reasons, and therefore was finally included in the current

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 9

Code as a recommendation (Recommendation 8A) rather than as a mandatory
Article. The main concerns of the community related to coverage, availability and
accessibility, to which ZR responded (Howcroft & Thorne, 1999) as follows:

(1) Coverage. ZR’s names coverage is estimated to be well over 90% complete
(Bouchet, 1999). The remaining 10% or so of names are mainly those published
in sources to which ZR does not have access. We estimate that names we seek
from source libraries are usually indexed in ZR within six weeks of receipt at
the source library and a great majority are indexed within three weeks.
Material sent directly to ZR from publishers is normally indexed within two
weeks of receipt. As each new name indexed is double checked for spelling,
only a small fraction of one percent of new names is likely to be recorded
incorrectly. We know of no more current or complete names resource.

(2) Availability. Names are recorded at face value and reflect the literature. Names
that have been published improperly under the Code and are therefore
formally unavailable are still recorded. This may include names that are not
accompanied by an adequate description, names that are published electronic-
ally or associated with invalid typification. Names are checked against selected
criteria of availability and if they appear to be unavailable under the Code,
this is stated in the index entry. Other than this ZR is an unbiased index to
the literature and makes no judgements on the status or validity of names.
This is the province of taxonomists not indexers. ZR has adopted this
neutral position throughout its existence. However, it would not be difficult
to mark in the register those newly published names that do not fulfil
selected criteria.

(3) Access. There was an incorrect assumption that access to new names could
only be achieved through ZR and that this access would have to be paid for.
This was never the case and the ION service, then as now, is free to anyone
who wishes to check on the existence of a name. Other zoologists questioned
the viability of ZR and expressed concern about long-term access to the
register. BIOSIS has long recognized the importance of archival issues, and can
use its experience to ensure enduring access to a names register. The ZR was
founded in 1864. It has survived through two world wars and the technological
revolutions of the late 20th century, and the community can be reassured that
it is securely positioned for the future.

ZR and registration

Each year ZR selects some 70,000 items from the life science literature, and extracts
some 20,000 new animal names. These names, along with existing names indexed
from the literature, are made available to users through ION in the free resources
part of the BIOSIS web site. We suggest that this existing effort could readily be
exploited as a basis for registration purposes.

New animal names published in serials monitored for ZR (this list is available on
the BIOSIS web site: www.biosis.org) would be indexed as now. For those new names
published in serials not monitored for ZR (i.e. serials not available to us), authors
would need to provide a reprint of the relevant articles for indexing as is already
recommended in the existing Code. A similar mechanism could be established for
names published in non-serial publications.

10 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003

After indexing, all new names would be transferred to a suitably titled
register/database of new animal names mounted by BIOSIS on the web. The new
names, marked as such, would simultaneously be added to ION. This would enable
such names to be searched alongside existing names. The database would be available
free of charge to anyone (including non-subscribers to ZR) who wished to check on
the existence of a name. Such a database would provide a sound basis for a full
nomenclatural repository. However, it is important to note that in the current
proposal and in any other proposal that might be put forward, a new names
register/database will only be as comprehensive as the community chooses to make it.
It should be noted that registration of a name can only be accomplished once the
original publication in which the name is published as new has been indexed in ZR.

BIOSIS and the community

BIOSIS, established in 1926, is a not-for-profit organization based in Philadelphia,
U.S.A., which provides a variety of services for those seeking access to life science
information. BIOSIS UK, established in 1980, is a subsidiary of BIOSIS, based in
York, England. It compiles Zoological Record and provides an international presence
for the organization. BIOSIS is self-sustaining — there are no shareholders; any
surplus is reinvested in the company, and in the development of new services for the
life science community.

True to its mission, BIOSIS has long standing associations with several organiz-
ations, and is an active participant of the Committee on Data for Science and
Technology (CODATA), the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF),
Species 2000, and the Taxonomic Databases Working Group (TDWG). It also has
close ties with the Commission, and currently hosts the web sites of the Commission
and of Species 2000.

In addition to its participation in the activities of these organizations, BIOSIS
has recently created a new web-portal site entitled “BiologyBrowser’ (www.
biologybrowser.org) offering a range of free services to the research and education
community. This incorporates an indexed web directory of links to relevant Internet
sites, an animal classification guide for,students and teachers, a biological conference
calendar, and, in collaboration with other organizations, ION.

Working with the zoological community is also a means of ensuring that significant
duplication of effort is avoided. Sharing resources, or using existing resources for new
applications, benefits the entire community, and the concept of registration is no
exception. Registration would support, not compete with, GBIF, Species 2000, and
the many other names and biodiversity initiatives. Moreover, using the ZR,
registration could be accomplished with little extra effort by anyone else in the
publication chain.

BIOSIS and ZR

For almost a century the Zoological Society of London (ZSL) subsidized the
publication of ZR. In 1980, aware that it could not continue to provide this subsidy
and wishing to ensure the continuity of ZR, the ZSL entered into a joint publishing
agreement with BIOSIS. In the agreement, all production, management and financial
liability for ZR was transferred to BIOSIS, and BIOSIS UK was created. Since 1980,
BIOSIS has eliminated a significant publication backlog in ZR, introduced new

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 11

production systems, and issued ZR in electronic formats. Following these achieve-
ments, the BIOSIS Board (which includes several eminent members of the life science
community) has given overwhelming support for the ongoing development of ZR
and its community activities.

Conclusion

Given the critical role of names in all life science research, it is essential that the
zoological community agrees on a mechanism to bring them together in a central
resource. BIOSIS is well positioned, and willing, to provide this. With the help of the
community, and by using existing ZR procedures, a fully comprehensive new animal
names database (and perhaps, in the future, other organism names) could readily be
established. Taking this further, to provide a repository of the full description, links
to abstracts etc., would be a logical step that BIOSIS would be interested in
discussing with others. To make the registration of names that BIOSIS proposes a
reality, the current recommendation in the Code that authors should send a copy of
their work to ZR would have to be emended by the Commission to become a
mandatory requirement in the form of an Article of the Code.

Acknowledgements

I thank The Earl of Cranbrook (Chairman of the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature), Dr John Marsden (Executive Secretary, Linnean Society
of London), Dr Andrew Smith (The Natural History Museum, London), Dr Andrew
Wakeham-Dawson (Executive Secretary of the Commission) and the BIOSIS Board
for helpful discussion about the registration of names.

References

Bouchet, P. 1999. Recording and registration of new scientific names: a simulation of
the mechanism proposed (but not adopted) for the International Code of Zoological
Nomenclature. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 56(1): 6-15.

Howcroft, J. & Thorne, J. 1999. Centralized access to newly published zoological names.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 56(2): 108-112.

Nature. 2002. Genomics and taxonomy for all. Nature, 417(6889): 573.

Comments on this article are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).

12 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003

Case 3229

Erbocyathus Zhuravleva, 1955 (Archaeocyatha): proposed
conservation

Francoise Debrenne

Laboratoire de Paléontologie, Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle,
8 rue Buffon, 75005 Paris, France (e-mail: debrenne@mail.club-internet.fr)

Andrey Yu. Zhuravlev

Ministry of Natural Resources, ul. Bol’shaya Gruzinskaya 41/6,
Moscow 123995, Russia

Peter D. Kruse

Northern Territory Geological Survey, P.O. Box 3000, Darwin, NT 0801,
Australia (e-mail: Pierre. Kruse@nt.gov.au).

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve, under Article 23.9.3 of the
Code, the generic name Erbocyathus Zhuravleva, 1955, which is in widespread use for
a group of Cambrian fossil sponge-like archaeocyaths (family ERBOCYATHIDAE). This
name was proposed to replace the pre-occupied name Polycyathus Vologdin, 1928,
but is threatened by the single usage in 1955 of an older replacement name
Pluralicyathus Okulitch, 1950.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Archaeocyatha; ERBOCYATHIDAE; Erbocyathus;
Polycyathus heterovallum; Early Cambrian; fossil.

1. Vologdin (1928, p. 32) erected.a new Archaeocyatha genus and named it
Polycyathus (type species P. heterovallum Vologdin, 1928 (p. 36) by subsequent
designation by Simon (1939, p. 34)) for an unusual, modular two-walled septate
archaeocyath that has an attached microporous sheath on its outer wall, several rows
of simple pores per intersept on its inner wall, and aporose to sparsely porous septa
(Debrenne et al., 1990, p. 141). Vologdin (1928, p. 35) also erected the family
POLYCYATHIDAE based on his new genus. The class Archaeocyatha Bornemann, 1884
includes fossil marine organisms almost exclusively from the Early Cambrian epoch.
The group is now generally assigned to the sponges (Porifera).

2. However, Simon (1939, p. 34) noted that Vologdin’s generic name Polycyathus
had already been used by Duncan in 1876 for a genus of cnidarian. In
response, replacement names for Polycyathus Vologdin, 1928 were subsequently and
independently proposed by both V.J. Okulitch and I.T. Zhuravleva.

3. Okulitch (July 1950, p. 503) proposed the replacement name Pluralicyathus in
order to stabilise nomenclature for the then forthcoming edition of the Treatise on
Invertebrate Paleontology (Okulitch, 1955, pp. E1-E20), in which he used the name
on p. E10.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 13

4. Zhuravleva (1949, p. 10; February 1950a, p. 11) mentioned a replacement
name, Erbocyathus, for the same genus in two avtoreferats. In the former U.S.S.R.,
and subsequently, avtoreferats were and are short thesis summaries that are
issued in small numbers in connection with the examination of a submitted thesis.
Zhuravleva’s first (1949) defence of her kandidat thesis in biological sciences was not
successful, whereas her second (1950) was. Her 1949 avtoreferat was reprinted with
modifications in February 1950. She used the name Erbocyathus only once in each of
the avtoreferats when writing about the Obruchev horizon: ‘Apart from the
characteristic species Erbocyathus (Polycyathus) heterovallum (Vologdin), several
species of Ethmophyllum, Retecyathus operosus and others are found there [1949,
p. 10; 1950a, p. 11; current authors’ translation)’.

5. Only 150 copies for each of Zhuravleva’s avtoreferats were printed and
distribution was very limited. As a result, we do not accept that the name Erbocyathus
is available from either of these avtoreferats (see Article 8.1 of the Code). In addition,
neither of the two avtoreferats contains a clear statement that Erbocyathus is
intended to be a replacement name for Polycyathus.

6. The first undisputed publication of the generic name Erbocyathus is by
Zhuravleva (1950b, October), where she writes regarding development of modularity
in the cup (p. 857): ‘In representatives of the “genus” Erbocyathus (=Polycyathus)
from the former “family” POLYCYATHIDAE, cups were observed only up to the stage of
a continuous inner wall. Revision of Erbocyathus specimens in the Palaeontological
Institute A.N. S.S.S.R.,.. . together with familiarity with all known literature on
colonial archaeocyaths, leads me to the conviction that in those cases in which
examples with a colonial skeleton are found, species should never be distinguished as
independent genera and families only on this feature alone, for all cases of colonial
cups just as for solitary individuals. Thus we can abolish the following colonial
“genera” of archaeocyaths: Erbocyathus (=Polycyathus), Sajanocyathus Vologdin
and Densocyathus Vologdin [current authors’ translation]’. However, this publication
of the replacement name Erbocyathus by Zhuravleva (1950b) does not satisfy the
requirements of Article 13 (specifically Article 13.1.3), as the provisions of Article 11
are not also satisfied (Article 13.1). This is because the whole thrust of Zhuravleva’s
commentary (quoted above) is not to validate the genus as required by Article 11.5,
but to abolish it.

7. The name Erbocyathus was next used by Zhuravleva (1955), within an existing
family, though again without diagnosis or any elaboration. She mentions the genus
once (p. 44): ‘Thus it is concluded that the genera numbered in the family
Ethmophyllidae are few —four in all: Ethmophyllum Meek, Ethmocyathus R. & W.
Bedford, Tegerocyathus Krasnopeeva and Erbocyathus (=Polycyathus) Zhuravleva’.
This usage appears to satisfy Article 11.5 and therefore Article 13, provided that the
construction ‘Erbocyathus (=Polycyathus) Zhuravleva’ constitutes an express pro-
posal of a new replacement name for the purposes of Article 13.1.3. We have
accepted that this is the case and that the name Erbocyathus Zhuravleva became
available in 1955.

8. Vologdin (1956, p. 879) later proposed the family ERBOCYATHIDAE Vologdin &
Zhuravleva. Although no diagnosis was provided, this name is available under Article
13.2.1, as we have accepted (para. 7 above) that the replacement name Erbocyathus
was successfully made available by Zhuravleva in 1955 (p. 44) (Article 13.2).

14 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003

9. Zhuravleva (1960, p. 189), in her influential book on Siberian Platform
archaeocyaths, used ‘Erbocyathus Zhuravleva, 1950°, invalidly citing her 1950a
avtoreferat as having made this name available. She provided diagnosis, description
and illustration of the genus and also accepted the family name ERBOCYATHIDAE
Vologdin & Zhuravleva, 1956 and (p. 187) elevated this to a superfamily with the
name ERBOCYATHACEA. Both names are in use today. Polycyathus heterovallum
Vologdin, 1928 is the type species of Erbocyathus Zhuravleva, 1955 (see para. 1 above
and Article 67.8).

10. From 1950 to the present, Erbocyathus Zhuravleva (generally attributed to the
1950a publication) has been widely viewed as the valid replacement name for
Polycyathus Vologdin, 1928. To our knowledge, no author has challenged the use of
the name Erbocyathus, other than Okulitch (1955) who used the senior replacement
name Pluralicyathus Okulitch, 1950. To date the genus Erbocyathus has been treated
taxonomically in numerous publications including seminal works by Hill (1965,
1972), Rozanov (1973) and Debrenne et al. (1990) and includes five species from the
Siberia-Mongolia-Central Asia region (Debrenne et al., 1990). With the exception of
Okulitch (1955), the name Pluralicyathus has only been cited as a synonym of
Erbocyathus, and no species other than the type species has ever been assigned to the
genus Pluralicyathus.

11. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to use its plenary power to suppress the generic name Pluralicyathus Okulitch,
1950 for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the
Principle of Homonymy;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name
Erbocyathus Zhuravleva, 1955 (gender: masculine), type species Polycyathus
heterovallum Vologdin, 1928 by subsequent designation by Simon (1939) of the
replaced nominal genus Polycyathus Vologdin, 1928:

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name hetero-
vallum Vologdin, 1928, as published in the binomen Polycyathus heterovallum
(specific name of the type species of Erbocyathus Zhuravleva, 1955);

(4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name
ERBOCYATHIDAE Vologdin & Zhuravleva, 1956, type genus Erbocyathus
Zhuravleva, 1955;
to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in
Zoology the names:

(a) Pluralicyathus Okulitch, 1950, as suppressed in (1) above:
(b) Polycyathus Vologdin, 1928 (a junior homonym of Polycyathus Duncan,
1876).

—
Nn
wm

References

Debrenne, F., Rozanoy, A. & Zhuravley, A. 1990. Regular Archaeocyaths. Morphology.
Systematics. Biostratigraphy. Palaeoecology. Biological affinities. 218 pp., 32 pls. Cahiers
de Paléontologie, Editions du C.N.R:S.

Duncan, P.M. 1876. Notices of some deep-sea and littoral corals from the Atlantic Ocean,
Caribbean, Indian, New Zealand, Persian Gulf and Japanese . . . seas. Proceedings of the
Zoological Society of London, 1876: 428-442. :

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 15

Hill, D. 1965. Archaeocyatha from Antarctica and a review of the phylum. Transantarctic
Expedition, Scientific Reports, 10 Geology, 3: 1-151.

Hill, D. 1972. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. Part E, 1. Archaeocyatha. xxx, 158 pp.
Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Boulder and Lawrence.

Okulitch, V.J. 1950. Pluralicyathus, new name for Polycyathus Vologdin, 1928 not Duncan,
1876. Journal of Paleontology, 24: 503.

Okulitch, V.J. 1955. Pp. El—20 in: Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. Part E. Archaeo-
cyatha and Porifera. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press,
Lawrence.

Rozanoy, A.Yu. 1973. Zakonomernosti morfologicheskoy evolyutsii arkheotsiat i voprosy
yarusnogo rashchleneniya nizhnego kembriya. 164 pp., 22 pls. Nauka, Moscow.

Simon, W. 1939. Archaeocyathacea. I. Kritische Sichtung der Superfamilie. II. Die Fauna
im Kambrium der Sierra Morena (Spanien). Abhandlungen der Senckenbergischen
Naturforschende Gesellschaft, 448: 1-87.

Vologdin, A.G. 1928. O novykh svoeobraznykh formakh arkheotsiat iz kembriya Sibiri.
Ezhegodnik Russkogo Paleontologicheskogo Obshchestva, 7: 25-46.

Vologdin, A.G. 1956. K klassifikatsii tipa Archaeocyatha. Doklady Akademii Nauk S.S.S.R.,
111: 877-880.

Zhuravleva, I.T. 1949. Arkheotsiaty kembriya vostochnogo sklona Kuznetskogo Ala-Tau (der.
Potekhino). 12 pp. Avtoreferat. Dissertatsiya na soiskanie uchonoy stepeni kandidata
biologicheskikh nauk, Moscow.

Zhuravleva, I.T. 1950a. Arkheotsiaty kembriyva vostochnogo sklona Kuznetskogo Ala-Tau. 13
pp. Avtoreferat. Dissertatsiya na soiskanie uchonoy stepeni kandidata biologicheskikh
nauk, Moscow.

Zhuravleva, I.T. 1950b. O nakhodke v kembriyskikh otlozheniyakh Tuvy arkheotsiata s
kolonial’nym skeletom. Doklady Akademii Nauk S.S.S.R., 75: 855-858.

Zhurayleya, I.T. 1955. Arkheotsiaty kembriya vostochnogo sklona Kuznetskogo Ala-Tau.
Trudy, Paleontologicheskiy Institut, Akademiya Nauk S.S.S.R., 56: 5—56.

Zhuravleva, I.T. 1960. Arkheotsiaty Sibirskoy platformy. 344 pp., 33 pls. Akademiya Nauk
S.S.S.R., Moscow.

Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 59: 69.

Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).

16 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003

Case 3216

Spongia ventilabra Linnaeus, 1767 (currently Phakellia ventilabra;
Porifera): proposed conservation of the specific name and designation
of a neotype

Belinda Alvarez and Richard C. Willan

Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory, GPO Box 4646,
Darwin, NT 0801, Australia (e-mail: Belinda.Glasby@nt.gov.au)

Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to
conserve the specific name of the type species of the axinellid sponge genus Phakellia
Bowerbank, 1862. The name in prevailing usage is Spongia ventilabra Linnaeus, 1767.
This name is threatened by the use in 1912 of a senior objective synonym, Spongia
strigosa Pallas, 1766. A neotype is designated for Spongia ventilabra Linnaeus, 1767.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Porifera; AXINELLIDAE; Phakellia; Phakellia
ventilabra; sponges.

1. In 1766, Professor Peter Pallas introduced the name Spongia strigosa for a new
species of fan-shaped sponge (family AXINELLIDAE) from ‘Mare Americanum’ (Pallas,
1766, p. 397). Pallas’s description referred to a sponge described as ‘planta marina
foliacea & spongiosa, singulari modo ramosa’ (p. 184), and illustrated (pl. 95,
fig. 8) as such in the Thesaurus of Albertus Seba (1758). This work corresponds to the
third of Seba’s four volumes, which was published about twenty years posthumously
under the editorship of Pallas amongst others (see Engel, 1961).

2. Linnaeus (1767, p. 1296) described Spongia ventilabra from “M. Norvegico’
collected by Bishop Gunnerus at Drontheim (now Trondheim). This description also
mentioned the illustration given by Seba and the description of Spongia strigosa given
by Pallas. Pallas’s and Linnaeus’s names were based on the same source, that is
Seba’s figure, which was given to Seba by Gunnerus (see Esper, 1794, p. 211). The
names Spongia strigosa and Spongia ventilabra are therefore objective synonyms.

3. In his encyclopaedia of nature, Esper (1794, pp. 209-211) included Spongia
ventilabra Linnaeus and indicated that it could be the same species described by
Pallas as Spongia strigosa, but he made no formal synonymy. As if to indicate his own
uncertainty, Esper included both specific names in the legend to his own illustration
(Spong. tab XII).

4. Fleming (1828, p. 523) used Linnaeus’s specific name in the new combination
Halichondria ventilabra without mentioning Spongia strigosa. Later, Johnston (1842)
referred to the species as Halichondria ventilabrum (sic) without explanation and since
then the specific name has been spelt incorrectly as H. ventilabrum.

5. Under the modern Code, Johnston’s emendation of the spelling H. ventilabra
to H. yentilabrum was an incorrect subsequent spelling because the specific name
H. ventilabra was introduced as a noun in apposition, and as such its suffix is not

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 17

changed to match the gender of the generic name with which it is in combination
(Article 34.2.1); in any case both Halichondria and Spongia are feminine. However,
in defence of Johnston, we note that ‘ventilabrum’ is the correct Latin noun meaning
an implement for winnowing grain (Lewis & Short, 1980) and it was also the spelling
used by Gunnerus (Acta. Nidrof. vol. 4, fig. 4, fide Linnaeus, 1767).

6. Bowerbank (1862, p. 1109) designated Halichondria ventilabrum (sic) as the type
species of his new genus Phakellia. Phakellia is now a large genus of axinellid sponges
with 34 described and many unnamed species worldwide (B. Alvarez, unpublished
data). Vosmaer (1912), following Esper (1794), identified the synonymy between the
names Spongia strigosa and Spongia ventilabra and stated that the valid name for
the type species of Phakellia was P. strigosa (Pallas). However, no author except
Bergquist (1970), who merely listed the name P. strigosa, has followed Vosmaer in the
past ninety years.

7. Vosmaer (1912) claimed that he had found a dried sponge in the collection of the
Museum of Leiden which, in his opinion, strongly resembled the figure of Seba (see
para. | above) and he suggested that this specimen was the type specimen of Spongia
ventilabra Linnaeus. However, we believe Vosmaer’s conclusion is unjustified for
several reasons. First, it is likely that Seba’s figure was based solely on the drawing
by Gunnerus. Even if Seba’s illustration were based on an actual specimen, it is
unlikely still to be extant because most of the specimens illustrated in his Thesaurus
were ruined by mould and insects, or were sold to meet the expenses of printing the
final two volumes of the Thesaurus (Engel, 1961). Anyway, Vosmaer’s specimen
(M.L.B. 3) cannot now be located in the Leiden sponge collection (pers. comm. to
B. Alvarez by J.C. den Hartog, 22 May 1996). There are no records attributable to
Spongia ventilabra in the Linnaean collections housed at the Linnean Society of
London or at the Museum of Uppsala in Sweden (pers. comm. to B. Alvarez by
Kathie Way, Curator of Zoological Collections at the Natural History Museum,
London).

8. Given that there is good evidence that the original specimen of this sponge is no
longer extant we believe that a neotype designation is strongly needed. Neither the
original description of Spongia ventilabra by Linnaeus (1767), nor the illustration of
Seba cited within, provides an adequate basis for differentiation of this species from
others in the large genus as it is presently understood (Alvarez & Hooper, 2002). For
example, skeletal characters such as type and length of spicules, which are diagnostic
at the species level within the genus Phakellia, were not mentioned in the original
descriptions.

9. Several of the dry specimens upon which Bowerbank based the genus Phakellia
are deposited at the Natural History Museum (London) and were examined by one
of us (B. Alvarez) and they all agree with the present concept of P. ventilabra
(Linnaeus). One of these specimens (registered as BMNH 10.1.1.2687) is here
designated as the neotype for Spongia ventilabra. The specimen comes from the same
locality (Norway) as the original Gunnerus specimen of Spongia ventilabra (see para.
2 above) and externally matches the description of Linnaeus (1767). The specimen is
flabellate, approximately 23 cm high by 20 cm wide, with a short peduncle
approximately 1 cm in diameter. Its surface is hispid and marked by a reticulum of
spicule tracts, some of the ascending ones are thickened (5—7 mm) like veins. There
is no specialised ectosomal skeleton. The choanosomal skeleton is reticulated with

18 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003

primary tracts of sinuous strongyles (300-600 wm thick) and these are plumo-
echinated by styles or connected by secondary unispicular or paucispicular tracts of
styles or strongyles (60-200 um thick). The spicules are sinuous strongyles (length
630-1060 xm, width 13-18 pm) and styles are straight, flexuous, or bent near the head
(length 360-710 um, width 10-15 um). The external and skeletal features of Phakellia
ventilabrum are illustrated (under that name) in Alvarez & Hooper (2002, p. 739).

10. The single adoption of the senior synonym Spongia strigosa Pallas, 1776 rather
than S. ventilabra Linnaeus, 1767 by Vosmaer in 1912 (see para. 6. above) prevents
the ‘automatic’ conservation of the later name under Article 23.9.1, and we submit
this application in accordance with Article 23.9.3.

11. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly

asked:

(1) to use its plenary power to suppress the specific name strigosa Pallas, 1766, as
published in the binomen Spongia strigosa, for the purposes of the Principle of
Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Phakellia
Bowerbank, 1862 (gender: feminine), type species by original designation
Spongia ventilabra Linnaeus, 1767;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name ventilabra
Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Spongia ventilabra and as defined
by the neotype (specimen BMNH 10.1.1.2687) designated in para. 9 above
(specific name of the type species of Phakellia Bowerbank, 1862);

(4) to place on the Official List of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology
the name strigosa, as published in the binomen Spongia strigosa Pallas, 1766
and suppressed in (1) above.

Acknowledgements

We thank the following for their support and comments on an earlier draft of this
paper: Dr Rob W.M. Van Soest, University of Amsterdam; Dr John N.A. Hooper,
Queensland Museum; Dr Alice E. Wells, Australian Biological Resource Studies,
Environment Australia; and Mr Robert Burn, Geelong. Ms Andrea McKey,
Museum and Art Gallery of Northern Territory and Dr Gert Worheide, Queensland
Museum, helped us with the translation of references written in archaic German.

References

Alvarez, B. & Hooper, J.N.A. 2002. Family Axinellidae. Pp. 724-747 in Hooper, J.N.A. &
van Soest, R.R.M. (Eds.), Systema Porifera. A Guide to the Supraspecific Classification of
the Phylum Porifera. Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers, New York.

Bergquist, P.R. 1970. The marine fauna of New Zealand: Porifera, Demospongiae, part 2.
(Axinellida and Halichondrida). New Zealand Oceanographic Institute Memoir, 51: 1-85.

Bowerbank, J.S. 1862. On the anatomy and physiology of the Spongiadae. Part II: On
the generic characters, the specific characters and on the method of examination.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 152: 1087-1135.

Engel, H. 1961. The sale-catalogue of the cabinets of natural history of Albertus Seba (1752).
A curious document from the period of naturae curiosi. Bulletin of the Research Council
of Israel (Section B), 10: 119-131.

Esper, E.J.C. 1794. Die pflanzenthiere in Abbildungen nach der Natur: mit jarben erleuchtet nebt
Beschreibungen, vol. 2. 303 pp., 49 pls. Kaspeschen Buchhandlung, Nirnberg.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 19

Fleming, J. 1828. A history of British Animals, exhibiting the descriptive characters and
systematical arrangement of the genera and species of Quadrupeds, Birds, Reptiles, Fishes,
Mollusca, and Radiata of the United Kingdom, & c. xxiv, 567 pp. Bell & Bradfute,
Edinburgh and James Duncan, London.

Johnston, G. 1842. History of British Sponges and Lithophytes. 264 pp., 25 pls. Lizars,
Edinburgh, London, Dublin.

Lewis, C.T. & Short, C. 1980. 4 Latin Dictionary founded on Andrew’s edition of Freud's Latin
Dictionary. 2019 pp. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Linnaeus, C. 1767. Systema Naturae, Ed. 12, vol. 1. 1327 pp. Salvii, Holmiae.

Pallas, P.S. 1766. Elenchus Zoophytorum sistens Generum Adumbrationes Generaliores
et Specierum Cognitarum succinctas Descriptiones cum Selectis Auctorum Synonymis.
451 pp. van Cleef, Hagae Comitum.

Seba, A. 1758. Locupletissimi Rerum Naturalium Thesauri Accurata Descriptio, vol. 3.
212 pp., 116 pls. Janssonio-Waesbergios, Amstelaedami.

Vosmaer, G.C.J. 1912. On the distinction between the genera Axinella, Phakellia, Acanthella,
a.o. Zoologische Jahrbiicher, Jena, Supplement 15, 1: 307-322.

Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 58: 249.

Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).

~
Reproduction from Seba (1758, pl. 95, fig. 8) of ‘planta marina foliacea & spongiosa, singulari modo
ramosa .

20 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003

Case 3223

Unio ochraceus Say, 1817 (currently Ligumia ochracea; Mollusca,
Bivalvia): proposed precedence of the specific name over Mytilus
fluviatilis Gmelin, 1791

James R. Cordeiro

Science Division, Nature Serve, 11 Avenue de Lafayette, 5th Floor, Boston,
MA 02111, U.S.A. (e-mail: jay_cordeiro@natureserve.org)

Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 23.9.3 and 81.2.3 of the
Code, is to conserve the widely used specific name of Unio ochraceus Say, 1817
(currently Ligwmia ochracea) for the American freshwater mussel (tidewater mucket)
(family UNIONIDAE) by giving it precedence over the little used senior subjective
synonym Mytilus fluviatilis Gmelin, 1791.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Mollusca; UNIONIDAE; Ligumia ochracea;
Mytilus fluviatilis; tidewater mucket; fresh water mussel; clam; America.

1. Lister (1685, pl. 157, fig. 12) described a freshwater clam (family UNIONIDAE) that
is today commonly called the tidewater mucket or American freshwater mussel (see
Turgeon et al., 1998, p. 35). Lister depicted the external left valve and named the clam
‘Pectunculis fluviatilibus’. He gave the locality as ‘Vir’ [Virginia] and described the
clam as “pectunculus tenuis, subruber ex interna parte, rostro recuruo’. The last
known repository of Lister’s material was Oxford University Museum, although it
now appears to have been lost (Wilkins, 1953; Dance, 1966, p. 292; J.B. Davies,
Oxford University Museum, personal communication).

2. Gmelin (1791, p. 3359) was the first to give a name to the tidewater mucket after
1 January 1758. He named it Mytilus fluviatilis, mistakenly placing the species in the
marine genus Mytilus Linnaeus, 1758 even though he listed its habitat as ‘habitat in
Europae aquis delcibus’ [European freshwater]. Neither figures nor plates were
provided with the description. Gmelin (1791, p. 3359) equated Mytilus fluviatilis with
“‘Pectunculis fluviatilibus’ as illustrated by Lister (1685, pl. 157, fig. 12).

3. Despite the seniority of the name Mytilus fluviatilis, the majority of works over
the past two centuries have used the name Unio ochraceus Say, 1817 (pl. 2, fig. 8) for
the tidewater mucket (see Morrison, 1974, pp. 38-39). The nominal species has been
placed in the genera Lampsilis and Leptodea and most recently in the genus Ligumia
(see Smith, 2000). Over fifty-six works published after 1817 cite Ligumia ochracea as
the valid name (e.g. Gould, 1870, pp. 173-174; Johnson, 1947, pp. 150-156, pl. 20:
Johnson & Baker, 1973, pp. 163-164; Turgeon et al., 1998, p. 35). The additional list
of references has been submitted to the Commission Secretariat. This meets the
requirements of Article 23.9.1.2 for automatic conservation of the name L. ochracea.
However the senior synonym, L. fluviatilis, has been used for the fresh water mucket
before 1899 (e.g. Dillwyn, 1823, p. 13); and (with reference to Article 23.9.2) since
1899 (e.g. Morrison, 1974, pp. 38-39). Johnson (1947, p. 150) recognized the seniority

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 21

of Gmelin’s name fluviatilis but rejected it on the assumption that Gmelin (1791,
p. 1359) only referred to Lister’s (1685, pl. 855, fig. 12) figure as one that
‘approximated the European’ shell Gmelin was describing. Repeated usage of the
name fluviatilis by subsequent authors (e.g. Gould, 1841, pp. 112-113, fig. 80; Linsley,
1845, p. 277; Simpson, 1914, pp. 386-387; Ortmann, 1919, p. 160; Frierson, 1927,
p. 16 and Haas, 1969, pl. 367) can all be attributed to Isaac Lea’s (1838, p. 51, pl. 15,
fig. 46) erroneous synonymizing of Mytilus fluviatilis with another eastern American
freshwater mussel, Pyganodon cataracta (Say, 1817). Usage of the senior synonym,
Ligumia fluviatilis, prevents automatic conservation of the junior synonym, L.
ochracea, under Article 23.9.2. Therefore, in the interests of nomenclatural stability,
this application is brought to the Commission under Articles 23.9.3 and 81.2.3 of the
Code. Commission approval will mean that if the two names are considered to be
synonyms, L. ochracea becomes the valid name for the taxon.
4. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to give the name ochraceus Say, 1817, as published in
the binomen Unio ochraceus, precedence over the name fluviatilis Gmelin,
1791, as published in the binomen Mytilus fluviatilis, whenever the two are
considered to be synonyms;
(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) ochraceus Say, 1817, as published in the binomen Unio ochraceus, with the
endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the name fluviatilis
Gmelin, 1791, as published in the binomen Mytilus fluviatilis, whenever the
two are considered to be synonyms;
(b) fluviatilis Gmelin, 1791, as published in the binomen Mytilus fluviatilis, with
the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the name ochraceus
Say, 1817, as published in the binomen Unio ochraceus, whenever the two
are considered to be synonyms.

References

Dance, S.P. 1966. Shell collecting. An illustrated history. 344 pp. University of California Press,
Berkeley, California.

Dillwyn, L.W. 1823. An index to the Historie Conchyliorum of Lister, with the name of the
species to which each figure belongs, and occasional remarks. 48 pp. E typographeo
Clarendoniano, Oxonii.

Gmelin, J.F. 1791. Caroli a Linné Systema Naturae per Regna Tria Naturae: Secundum
Classes, Ordines, Genera, Species, cum Characteribus, Differentiis, Synonymis, Locis.
Tom I, Pars VI. 4120 pp. Lipsiae.

Gould, A.A. 1841. Report on the Invertebrata of Massachusetts, comprising the Mollusca,
Crustacea, Annelida, and Radiata. 373 pp., 213 figs. Folson, Wells & Thurston,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Gould, A.A. 1870. Report on the Invertebrata of Massachusetts. 2nd Edition comprising the
Mollusca. v, 524 pp., 755 figs., 27 pls. Wright & Potter, Boston, Massachusetts.

Haas, F. 1969. Superfamily Unionacea. Das Tierreich Eine Zusammenstellung und
Kennzeichnung der rezenten Tierformen Lieferung, 88: 1-663.

Johnson, R.I. 1947. Lampsilis cariosa Say and Lampsilis ochracea Say. Occasional Papers on
Molluscs, 1(12): 145-156.

Johnson, R.I. & Baker, H.B. 1973. The types of Unionacea (Mollusca: Bivalvia) in the
Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural
Sciences of Philadelphia, 125: 145-186.

22 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003

Lea, I. 1838. Description of new freshwater and land shells. Transactions of the American
Philosophical Society, 6: 1-154.

Linsley, J.H. 1845. Catalogue of the shells of Connecticut. American Journal of Science, 48(2):
271-286.

Lister, M. 1685. Historie sive Synopsis Methodice Conchyliorum quorum Omnium Picture, ad
vivum delineate, exhibetur Liber Primus, qui est de Cochleis Terrestribus. 490 pp., 1062 pls.
Aere incisus, Sumptibus authoris, Londini.

Morrison, J.P.E. 1974. Maryland and Virginia mussels of Lister. Bulletin of the American
Malacological Union, 1974: 36-39.

Ortmann, A.E. 1919. A monograph of the naiades of Pennsylvania. Part III. Systematic
account of the genera and species. Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum, 8(1): 1-384.

Say, T. 1817. Article on Conchology. In: Nicholson's Encyclopedia or Dictionary of
Arts & Sciences illustrated by upwards of 180 elegant drawings, Ed. 1, vol. 4. 17 pp.
(unnumbered). Mitchell, Ames & White, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Simpson, C.T. 1914. A descriptive catalogue of the Naiades or pearly fresh-water mussels. Part
I. Unionidae. Truncilla - Margaritana. 1540 pp. Bryant Walker, Detroit, Michigan.
Smith, D.G. 2000. On the taxonomic placement of Unio ochraceus Say, 1817 in the genus

Ligumia (Bivalvia: Unionidae). Nautilus, 114(4): 155-160.

Turgeon, D.D., Quinn, J.F. Jr., Bogan, E.A., Coan, E.V., Hochberg, F.G., Lyons, W.G.,
Mikkelsen, P.M., Neves, R.J., Roper, C.F.E., Rosenberg, G., Roth, B., Scheltema, A.,
Thompson, F.G., Vecchione, M. & Williams, J.D. 1998. Common and scientific names of
aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: molluscs. Ed. 2. 526 pp.
American Fisheries Society Special Publication.

Wilkins, G.L. 1953. A catalogue and historical account of the Sloane shell collection. Bulletin
of the British Museum (Natural History), Historical Series, 1(1): 3-47.

Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 59: 1.

Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin: they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 S5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).

~ Sectio 3,

Fluviatilibus .

“ yoo > SE 3 Zo

cy

“

a
&

ne

Ze

Pectunculis fluviatilibus (Lister, 1685, pl. 157, fig. 12).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 23

Case 3151

RHOPALURUSINAE Biicherl, 1971 (Arachnida, Scorpiones, BUTHIDAE):
proposed conservation as the correct spelling to remove homonymy
with RHOPALURIDAE Stunkard, 1937 (Orthonectida)

Victor Fet

Department of Biological Sciences, Marshall University, Huntingdon,
West Virginia 25755, U.S.A. (e-mail: fet@marshall.edu)

Mary E. Petersen
Zoological Museum, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 15,
DK-2100 Copenhagen 0, Denmark

George S. Slyusarev

Department of Invertebrate Zoology, Division of Biology & Soil Science,
St. Petersburg State University, Universitetskaya nab. 719,

St. Petersburg 199034, Russia

Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 29 and 55.3.1 of the Code,
is to remove homonymy between the family-group names RHOPALURINAE Bicherl,
1971 (family BUTHIDAE, Scorpiones) and RHOPALURIDAE Stunkard, 1937 (phylum
Orthonectida) by changing the spelling of the junior homonym. To date both names
have had little use, but the name RHOPALURINAE is likely to be used in future
taxonomic revisions of the BUTHIDAE. Before this junior homonym becomes adopted
in the literature, it is proposed that the whole of the generic name of the type genus
(Rhopalurus Thorell, 1876) of RHOPALURINAE should be used to form the emended
name RHOPALURUSINAE Biicherl, 1971, leaving the orthonectid senior homonym
(RHOPALURIDAE Stunkard, 1937) unchanged.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Orthonectida; Arachnida; Scorpiones;
RHOPALURIDAE; RHOPALURUSINAE; Rhopalura; Rhopalurus; Rhopalura ophiocomae;
Rhopalurus laticauda.

1. The family name RHOPALURIDAE Stunkard, 1937 (p. 6) (phylum Orthonectida) 1s
based on the name of its type genus, Rhopalura Giard, 1877 (p. 813) (type species
Rhopalura ophiocomae Giard, 1877, by monotypy). Giard (1877, pp. 812-813)
described the animal in question and just after the description wrote “Je donne a cet
animal étrange le nom de Rhopalura Ophiocome’ (p. 813). The name RHOPALURIDAE
was introduced by Stunkard (1937, p. 6) as a replacement name for the family called
“ORTHONECTIDAE’ by Hartmann (1925). Hartmann’s family name was not available
because it was not based on any included genus, but merely derived from the phylum
name Orthonectida Giard, 1877. The name RHOPALURIDAE was later also proposed
by Caullery (1961, p. 703), but Stunkard (1937) has priority as its author. How-
ever, family-group names are rarely used in the latest treatments of the phylum
Orthonectida (e.g. Kozloff, 1992; Slyusarev & Miller, 1998).

24 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003

2. The subfamily name RHOPALURINAE Bicherl, 1971 (p. 325) (Scorpiones, family
BUTHIDAE) was based on the type genus Rhopalurus Thorell, 1876 (p. 9) (type species
R. laticauda Thorell, 1876 (p. 9) by original designation). Rhopalurus is a well-known
and diverse genus of large, medically important scorpions from South America and
the Caribbean (Kraepelin, 1899; Mello-Leitao, 1945; Biicherl, 1971; Lourengo, 1982,
1986; Sissom, 1990; Fet & Lowe, 2000). The name RHOPALURINAE is an available name
under the Code and has no synonyms, but it has not been used in the literature since
its introduction, mainly because the subfamilial structure of BUTHIDAE is generally
unresolved. Recent treatments of this family have avoided using the subfamily
category altogether (Francke, 1985; Sissom, 1990; Fet & Lowe, 2000). However,
the name RHOPALURINAE is likely to be used in further taxonomic revisions of the
BUTHIDAE.

3. According to Article 29.3, Rhopalura Giard, 1877 and Rhopalurus Thorell, 1876
have the same stem (Rhopalur-). Therefore, according to Article 55.3, RHOPALURIDAE
Stunkard, 1937 and RHOPALURINAE Biicherl, 1971 are homonyms in the family-group
category and the case must be brought to the Commission for a ruling to remove
homonymy.

4. The most straightforward way to remove the homonymy between these two
names would be to use the whole of the generic name Rhopalurus Thorell, 1876 as the
stem for the scorpion family-group name, thereby emending the name RHOPALURINAE
Biicherl, 1971 to RHOPALURUSINAE Biicherl, 1971. The latter form is preferred by
the Code as a means of avoidance of homonymy in family-group names (see
Recommendation 29.6A).

5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to use its plenary power to rule that for the purposes of Article 29 of the Code

the stem of the generic name Rhopalurus Thorell, 1876 is Rhopalurus-;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) Rhopalurus Thorell, 1876, type species by original designation Rhopalurus
laticauda Thorell, 1876 (Arachnida);

(b) Rhopalura Giard, 1877, type species by monotypy Rhopalura ophiocomae
Giard, 1877 (Orthonectida);

to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:

(a) laticauda Thorell, 1876, as published in the binomen Rhopalurus laticauda
(specific name of the type species of Rhopalurus Thorell, 1876) (Arachnida);

(b) ophiocomae Giard, 1877, as published in the binomen Rhopalura ophio-
comae (specific name of the type species of Rhopalura Giard, 1877)
(Orthonectida);

to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the following

names:

(a) RHOPALURIDAE Stunkard, 1937, type genus Rhopalura Giard, 1877 (Ortho-
nectida);

(b) RHOPALURUSINAE Biicherl, 1971, type genus Rhopalurus Thorell, 1876
(spelling emended by the ruling in (1) above) (Arachnida);

to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in

Zoology the name RHOPALURINAE Biicherl, 1971 (an incorrect original spelling

of RHOPALURUSINAE, as ruled in (1) above) (Arachnida).

(3

wm

=

(5

~—

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 25

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Claus Nielsen (Zoological Museum, University of Copenhagen)
and Philip Tubbs (The Natural History Museum, London) for helpful discussions
and for reading through earlier drafts of the manuscript.

References

Biicherl, W. 1971. Classification, biology and venom extraction of scorpions. Pp. 317-348 in
Biicherl, W. & Buckley, E.E. (Eds.), Venomous animals and their venoms, 3. Academic
Press, New York.

Caullery, M. 1961. Classe des Orthonectides. Pp. 695-706 in Grassé, P.P. (Ed.), Traité de
Zoologie, 4. Masson et Cie, Paris.

Fet, V. & Lowe, G. 2000. Family Buthidae. Pp. 54-286 in Fet, V., Sissom, W.D., Lowe, G. &
Braunwalder, M.E., Catalog of the scorpions of the world (1758-1998). New York
Entomological Society, New York.

Francke, O.F. 1985. Conspectus genericus scorpionorum 1758-1982 (Arachnida: Scorpiones).
Occasional Papers of the Museum/Texas Tech University, 98: 1-32.

Giard, A. 1877. Sur les Orthonectida, classe nouvelle d’animaux parasites des échinodermes et
des turbellariés. Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Séances de | Académie des Sciences,
Paris, 85: 812-814.

Hartmann, M. 1925. Mesozoa. Pp. 996-1014 in Kukenthal, W. & Krumbach, T. (Eds.),
Handbuch der Zoologie, vol. 1. Gruyter, Berlin.

Kozloff, E.N. 1992. The genera of the phylum Orthonectida. Cahiers de Biologie Marine, 33:
377-406.

Kraepelin, K. 1899. Scorpiones und Pedipalpi. Jn Dahl, F. (Ed.), Das Tierreich, vol. 8.
Arachnoidea. 265 pp. Friedlander, Berlin.

Lourengo, W.R. 1982. Révision du genre Rhopalurus Thorell, 1876 (Scorpiones, Buthidae).
Revue Arachnologique, 4: 107-141.

Lourengo, W.R. 1986. Biogéographie et phylogénie des Scorpions du genre Rhopalurus Thorell,
1876 (Scorpiones, Buthidae). Mémoires de la Société Royale Belge d’Entomologie, 33:
129-137.

Mello-Leitao, C. de. 1945. Escorpides sul-americanos. Arquivos do Museu Nacional, 40: 7-468.

Sissom, W.D. 1990. Chapter 3. Systematics, biogeography and paleontology. Pp. 64-160 in
Polis, G.A. (Ed.), Biology of scorpions. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.

Slyusarev, G.S. & Miller, D.M. 1998. Fine structure of the mature plasmodium of Jntoshia
variabili (Phylum Orthonectida), a parasite of the platyhelminth Macrorhynchus crocea.
Acta Zoologica (Stockholm), 79(4): 319-327.

Stunkard, H.W. 1937. The physiology, life-cycles and phylogeny of the parasitic flatworms.
American Museum Novitates, 908: 1—27.

Thorell, T. 1876. On the classification of scorpions. Annals and Magazine of Natural History,
(4)17: 1-15.

Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 57: 2.

Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).

26 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003

Case 3236

Zeriassa Pocock, 1897 (September) (Arachnida, Solifugae): proposed
precedence over Canentis Pavesi, 1897 (August)

Mark S. Harvey

Department of Terrestrial Invertebrates, Western Australian Museum,
Francis St., Perth, Western Australia 6000, Australia

(e-mail: mark.harvey@museum.wa.gov.au)

Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 23.9.3 and 81.2.3 of the
Code, is to conserve the generic name Zeriassa Pocock, 1897 for a group of sun
spiders (family soLPUGIDAE) by giving it precedence over the unused older name
Canentis Pavesi, 1897 whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Arachnida; SOLPUGIDAE; Zeriassa; Canentis;
Zeriassa bicolor; Zeriassa ruspolii; sun spiders; Africa.

1. In September 1897, Pocock (1897b, p. 252) proposed the generic name Zeriassa
for a species of sun spider Zeria bicolor Pocock, 1897a (p. 392) (family soLPUGIDAE)
that had been collected from an unspecified locality in Somalia. The type species of
Zeriassa is Zeria bicolor Pocock, 1897a by original designation (Pocock, 1897b,
p. 255).

2. At virtually the same time, Pavesi (12 August 1897, p. 158) named the genus
Canentis for the new nominal species C. ruspolii Pavesi, 1897 (p. 159) from Somalia.
The holotype (a female specimen) is lodged in the Museo Civico di Storia Naturale
di Genova and was examined by Simonetta & Della Cave, who (1968) redescribed the
species based upon the holotype and several other specimens from Somalia and
Ethiopia. C. ruspolii Pavesi, 1897 is the type species of Canentis by original
designation and monotypy.

3. Both Pocock (1897b) and Pavesi (1897) noted the distinctive setal morphology
of the eye tubercle that is diagnostic of these species of sun spiders. This feature
enabled Kraepelin (1901, p. 81) to recognize the two generic names as synonyms, and
he used the name Zeriassa as the valid name.

4. Despite Kraepelin’s (1901) use of Zeriassa, it is clear that Canentis has strict
priority over Zeriassa, as it was published a month prior to Zeriassa. However,
Canentis has not been used as a valid name since Pavesi first established it over a
hundred years ago, whereas Zeriassa is currently in use for 17 species (including
Z. ruspolii) found in southern and eastern Africa (e.g. Roewer, 1933; Simonetta &
Della Cave, 1968; Wharton, 1981). The use of the name Canentis in place of Zeriassa
would entail considerable confusion and would be contrary to the spirit of the Code
(see Article 23.9.3). Although the name Canentis has not been used for over a
hundred years (see Article 23.9.1.1), the name Zeriassa does not meet the criteria of
Article 23.9.1.2 for ‘automatic’ conservation because so few authors have studied this
group of animals. I propose that Zeriassa is given precedence (see Article 81.2.3) over

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 27

Canentis whenever these names are considered to be synonyms. However if, in the
light of future research, Zeriassa is found not to be congeneric with Canentis both
names are still available to denote the two taxa.

5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly

asked:

(1) to use its plenary power to give the name Zeriassa Pocock, 1897 precedence
over the name Canentis Pavesi, 1897, whenever the two names are considered
to be synonyms;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) Zeriassa Pocock, 1897 (gender: feminine), type species by original desig-

nation Zeria bicolor Pocock, 1897, with the endorsement that it is to be
given precedence over the name Canentis Pavesi, 1897 whenever the two
names are considered to be synonyms;

(b) Canentis Pavesi, 1897 (gender: masculine), type species by original desig-
nation and monotypy C. ruspolii Pavesi, 1897, with the endorsement that it
is not to be given priority over the name Zeriassa Pocock, 1897 whenever
the two names are considered to be synonyms;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) bicolor Pocock, 1897, as published in the binomen Zeria bicolor (specific

name of the type species of Zeriassa Pocock, 1897);

(b) ruspolii Pavesi, 1897, as published in the binomen Canentis ruspolii (specific

name of the type species of Canentis Pavesi, 1897).

References

Kraepelin, K. 1901. Palpigradi und Solifugae. Das Tierreich, 12: 1-xi, 1-159.

Pavesi, P. 1897. Studi sugli aracnidi africani. IX. Aracnidi di Somali e Galla. Annali del Museo
Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova, 38: 151-188.

Pocock, R.I. 1897a. On the genera and species of tropical African Arachnida of the order
Solifugae, with notes upon the taxonomy and habits of the group. Annals and Magazine
of Natural History, (6)20: 249-272.

Pocock, R.I. 1897b. Solifugae, Scorpiones, Chilopoda and Diplopoda. Pp. 392-407 in Smith,
A.D., Through unknown African countries. Arnold, London.

Roewer, C.F. 1933. Solifugae, Palpigradi. Pp. 161-480 in Bronns, H.G. (Ed.), Klassen und
Ordnungen des Tierreichs. 5: Arthropoda. IV: Arachnoidea. Akademische Verlagsgesell-
schaft M.B.H., Leipzig.

Simonetta, A.M. & Della Cave, L. 1968. A tentative revision of the ceromids and solpugids
(Arachnida, Solifugae) from Ethiopia and Somalia in the Italian Museums. Monitore
Zoologico Italiano, n.s., Supplemento, 2: 151-180.

Wharton, R.A. 1981. Namibian Solifugae (Arachnida). Cimbebasia Memoir, 5: \-87.

Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 59: 70.

Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).

28 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003

Case 3239

Geostiba Thomson, 1858 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation

V.I. Gusarov

Division of Entomology, Natural History Museum, University of Kansas,
Lawrence, KS 66045—7523, U.S.A. and Department of Entomology,

St. Petersburg State University, Universitetskaya nab. 7/9,

St. Petersburg 199034, Russia (e-mail: viad@ku.edu)

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve, under Article 23.9.3 of the
Code, the prevailing usage of the generic name Geostiba Thomson, 1858 for a
widespread and well-known genus of Holarctic and Oriental rove beetles (family
STAPHYLINIDAE, Subfamily ALEOCHARINAE). The name is threatened by very limited use
since 1952 of the senior objective synonym, Evanystes Gistel, 1856.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; STAPHYLINIDAE; ALEOCHARINAE; Geostiba;
Geostiba circellaris; rove beetles; Holarctic; Oriental.

1. Gistel (1856, p. 387) established a genus of rove beetles (now placed in family
STAPHYLINIDAE, subfamily ALEOCHARINAE) and named it Evanystes. He included
eight nominal species in the genus, among them Evanystes circellaris (Gravenhorst,
1806). This name was originally published in the binomen Aleochara circellaris
Gravenhorst, 1806 (p. 155). Gistel did not designate a type species for the genus
Evanystes. Blackwelder (1952, p. 163) subsequently designated Aleochara circellaris
Gravenhorst, 1806 as the type species of Evanystes and listed Evanystes as the senior
synonym of Geostiba Thomson, 1858.

2. Thomson (1858, p. 33) established a rove beetle genus and named it Geostiba. He
included only one nominal species, Homalota circellaris, in the genus. Although he
did not cite the author of this name, Thomson clearly had in mind Aleochara
circellaris Gravenhorst, 1806, which has been accepted by subsequent authors as the
type species by monotypy of Geostiba (see Article 67.7).

3. Although the name Evanystes is a senior objective synonym of Geostiba, it is the
name Geostiba that has had prevailing usage. To the best of my knowledge, the name
Evanystes was not used after its original publication until Blackwelder (1952)
designated the type species of Evanystes. Since Blackwelder (1952) the name
Evanystes has had some limited use in Eastern Europe, mostly by L. Adam and his
colleagues (e.g. Adam, 1996).

4. On the other hand, the name Geostiba has been used by more than 10 authors
in more than 25 works (e.g. Pace, 1977; Seevers, 1978; Lohse & Smetana, 1988:
Zerche, 1988; Assing & Wunderle, 1996; Assing, 1999; other records of use have been
submitted to the Commission Secretariat). A search of the Zoological Record
database for the years 1978-2001 produced 39 papers by 16 authors who used the
name Geostiba as a valid name.

5. The Code seeks to preserve the stability of established names by ensuring that
a younger name in prevailing usage is not displaced by an older but little used name

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 29

(see Article 23.2). However Article 23.9.1 cannot be automatically applied in the
present case as the senior synonym, Evanystes, has been used as the valid name for
this group of rove beetles by Blackwelder (1952) and a few others.

6. The genus Geostiba currently includes about 350 species and subspecies, which
are distributed in the Holarctic and Oriental regions. In this situation, strict
application of the Principle of Priority and use of the senior synonym Evanystes over
the junior name Geostiba would greatly destabilize staphylinid nomenclature.

7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to use its plenary power to suppress the generic name Evanystes Gistel, 1856
for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle
of Homonymy;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Geostiba
Thomson, 1858 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Aleochara
circellaris Gravenhorst, 1806;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name circellaris
Gravenhorst, 1806, as published in the binomen Aleochara circellaris (specific
name of the type species of Geostiba Thomson, 1858);

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in
Zoology the name Evanystes Gistel, 1856, as suppressed in (1) above.

Acknowledgements

I thank Lee H. Herman (American Museum of Natural History, New York) and
Izyaslav M. Kerzhner (Zoological Institute, St. Petersburg) for their comments. This
work was supported by National Science Foundation P.E.E.T. grants DEB-9521755
and DEB-9978110 to Steve Ashe, and by the Russian research program “Universities
of Russia (project 07.01.056)’.

References

Adam, L. 1996. The species of Staphylinidae from Orség (Coleoptera). Savaria, 23(2): 43-67.

Assing, V. 1999. A revision of the species of Geostiba Thomson 1858 from Greece and Cyprus
(Coleoptera: Staphylinidae, Aleocharinae). Linzer biologische Beitrdge, 31(2): 845-928.

Assing, V. & Wunderle, P. 1996. A revision of the Madeiran species of the genus Geostiba
Thomson 1858 (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae). Revue suisse de Zoologie, 103(1): 119-150.

Blackwelder, R.E. 1952. The generic names of the beetle family Staphylinidae, with an essay on
genotypy. United States National Museum Bulletin, 200: 1-483.

Gistel, J. 1856. Die Mysterien der Europdischen Insectenwelt. 530 pp. Tobias Dannheimer,
Kempten.

Gravenhorst, J.L.C. 1806. Monographia Coleopterorum Micropterorum. xvi, 248 pp. Dieterich,
GOttingen.

Lohse, G.A. & Smetana, A. 1988. Four new species of Geostiba Thomson from the
Appalachian mountains of North Carolina, with a key to North American species and
synonymic notes (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae: Aleocharinae). The Coleopterists’ Bulletin,
42(3): 269-278.

Pace, R. 1977. Studio sul genere Geostiba Thomson, con descrizione di nuove specie italiane
(Coleoptera, Staphylinidae). Fragmenta Entomologica, 13(1): 183-229.

Seevers, C.H. 1978. A generic and tribal revision of the North American Aleocharinae
(Coleoptera: Staphylinidae). Fieldiana: Zoology, 71: \—275.

Thomson, C.G. 1858. Fors6k till uppstallning af Sveriges Staphyliner. Ofversigt af Kongl.
Vetenskaps-Akademiens Férhandlingar, 15: 27-40.

30 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003

Zerche, L. 1988. Zur Taxonomie der Gattung Geostiba Thomson, 1858 (Coleoptera,
Staphylinidae, Aleocharinae). Beitrdge zur Entomologie, 38(1): 155-168.

Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 59: 70.

Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 3]

Case 3258

Acmaeodera Eschscholtz, 1829 and Acmaeoderella Cobos, 1955
(Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of usage by designation
of Buprestis cylindrica Fabricius, 1775 as the type species of
Acmaeodera

C.L. Bellamy

Plant Pest Diagnostics Lab., California Department of Food & Agriculture,
3294 Meadowview Road, Sacramento, California 95832, U.S.A.
(e-mail: cbellamy@cdfa.ca.gov)

M.G. Volkovitsh

Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, RU-199034
St. Petersburg, Russia (e-mail: polycest@zin.ru)

Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 70.2 of the Code, is to
conserve the current usage of the widely used buprestid (jewel beetle) generic names
Acmaeodera Eschscholtz, 1829 and Acmaeoderella Cobos, 1955 (family BUPRESTIDAE)
by accepting the designation of Buprestis cylindrica Fabricius, 1775 as the type species
of Acmaeodera. The type species of Acmaeodera is at present formally Buprestis
taeniata Fabricius, 1787 (a junior subjective synonym of B. flavofasciata Piller &
Mitterpacher, 1783). However, this designation (made in 1841) has been overlooked,
and in modern usage B. cylindrica has universally been accepted as the type species
of Acmaeodera. Adoption of B. taeniata as type species of Acmaeodera would cause
great nomenclatural instability as nearly 500 species would be affected by transfer
and changes in generic and subgeneric names.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; BUPRESTIDAE; Acmaeodera;
Acmaeoderella; Carininota,; Acmaeodera cylindrica; Acmaeoderella flavofasciata; jewel
beetles.

1. Eschscholtz (1829, p. 9) introduced the generic name Acmaeodera for five
nominal species of buprestid beetles (family BUPRESTIDAE): Buprestis gibbosa Olivier,
1790, B. taeniata Fabricius, 1787 (p. 180), B. adspersula (as adspersa) Illiger, 1803,
B. ornata Olivier, 1790, and B. cylindrica Fabricius, 1775 (p. 220). None was
designated as the type species. Acmaeodera now includes 495 species found in all
parts of the world except Australasia.

2. Duponchel (1841, p. 88) subsequently designated B. taeniata Fabricius, 1787 as
the type species of Acmaeodera. Desmarest (1860, p. 41) indicated that he con-
sidered B. taeniata to be the type species of Acmaeodera. Starting from the work of
Harold (1869, p. 117), B. taeniata has been listed as a junior subjective synonym
of B. flavofasciata Piller & Mitterpacher, 1783 (p. 84) (currently Acmaeoderella
flavofasciata).

32 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003

3. Cobos (1955, p. 5) introduced the generic name Acmaeoderella and designated
Buprestis discoidea Fabricius, 1787 (p. 184) as the type species. Later, Cobos (1958)
revised the Acmaeoderini of Morocco and transferred 21 nominal species of
Acmaeodera (including A. flavofasciata) to Acmaeoderella. Acmaeoderella currently
includes 120 species, all restricted to the Palaearctic region.
4. Volkovitsh (1979, p. 339; see also the 1980 English translation, p. 82) invalidly
designated B. cylindrica Fabricius, 1775 as the type species of Acmaeodera, unaware
of the much earlier designation of B. taeniata by Duponchel (see para. 2 above).
In this work Volkovitsh published a classification for the Palaearctic species of
both Acmaeodera and Acmaeoderella, erecting new subgenera and species groups.
Buprestis flavofasciata ( = B. taeniata; see para. 2 above) was designated as the type
species of the subgenus Carininota Volkovitsh, 1979 (p. 352) in Acmaeoderella.
Carininota and Buprestis flavofasciata were placed on Official Lists in Opinion 2008
(BZN 59: 211-216, September 2002). After Cobos (1955, 1958) and Volkovitsh
(1979), the names Acmaeoderella and Acmaeodera have been used in accord with the
type designations (valid and invalid respectively) made by these authors and their
meanings have been universally accepted (see Bily, 1977, 1983; Muhle, 1980; Bellamy,
1985: Cobos, 1986; Holynski, 1993; Curletti, 1994; Kolibaé, 2001; Volkovitsh, 2001).
5. Nomenclatural chaos would be caused if Duponchel’s type species designation
were to be accepted and B. taeniata taken to be the type species of Acmaeodera. The
name Acmaeodera would be applied to the 120 exclusively Palaearctic species
currently placed in Acmaeoderella and its six subgenera, and the taxonomic subgenus
now called Carininota would become the nominotypical subgenus Acmaeodera
(Acmaeodera) (see para. 4 above and Article 44). The taxon now called Acmaeoderella
(Acmaeoderella), with the type species B. discoidea, would become one of the
subgenera of Acmaeodera with a new subgeneric name. The 495 species (in some 12
subgenera) currently in Acmaeodera would be placed in a genus with a name
depending on taxonomic view, and the subgenus containing B. cylindrica Fabricius
would need a new name.
6. To avoid the confusion that would result from over-turning the traditional
stability of the genera Acmaeodera and Acmaeoderella, the type species designation
of Duponchel (1841; see para. 2 above) should be set aside and the designation of
Volkovitsh (1979; see para. 4 above) should be conserved.
7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to set aside all fixations of type species for the nominal
genus Acmaeodera Eschscholtz, 1829 before that of Buprestis cylindrica
Fabricius, 1775 by Volkovitsh (1979);
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) Acmaeodera Eschscholtz, 1829 (gender: feminine), type species Buprestis
cylindrica Fabricius, 1775 by the fixation of Volkovitsh (1979) as ruled in
(1) above;

(b) Acmaeoderella Cobos, 1955 (gender: feminine), type species by original
designation Buprestis discoidea Fabricius, 1787;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) cylindrica Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Buprestis cylindrica

(specific name of the type species of Acmaeodera Eschscholtz, 1829);

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 33

(b) discoidea Fabricius, 1787, as published in the binomen Buprestis discoidea
(specific name of the type species of Acmaeoderella Cobos, 1955).

References

Bellamy, C.L. 1985. A catalogue of the higher taxa of the family Buprestidae (Coleoptera).
Navorsinge van die nasionale Museum, Bloemfontein, 4(15): 405-472.

Bily, S. 1977. Klié k uréovani Ceskoslovenskych krascu. Buprestidae, Coleoptera. 51 pp.
Academia, Praha.

Bily, S. 1983. Results of the Czechoslovak-Iranian Entomological Expedition to Iran.
Coleoptera, Buprestidae. Acta Entomologica Musaei Nationalis Pragae, 41: 29-89.

Cobos, A. 1955. Estudio sobre los Ptosimites de Ch. Kerremans (Coleoptera, Buprestidae).
Bulletin de l'Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, 31(13): 1-24.

Cobos, A. 1958. Revision de los Acmaeoderini de Marruecos (Col. Buprestidae). EOS, Revista
Espanola de Entomologia, 34: 221-268.

Cobos, A. 1986. Fauna iberica de coleopteros Buprestidae. 364 pp. Aguirre, Madrid.

Curletti, G. 1994. I Buprestidi d’Italia. Catalogo tassonomico, sinonimico, biologico,
geonemico. Natura Bresciana, Brescia, Monografie, no. 19: 1-318.

Desmarest, E. 1860. Coléoptéres. In: Chenu, J.C. (Ed.), Encyclopédie d'histoire naturelle ou
traité complet de cette science, vol. 3. 360 pp. Maresq, Paris.

Duponchel, P.A.J. 1841. Acmaeodera. P. 88 in Orbigny, C.D. d’ (Ed.), Dictionnaire universel
histoire naturelle, vol. 1. Renard & Martinet, Paris.

Eschscholtz, J.F. 1829. Zoologischer Atlas. 17 pp. Reimer, Berlin.

Fabricius, J.C. 1775. Systema entomologiae . . . 32, 832 pp. Flensbergi et Lipsiae, Kortii.

Fabricius, J.C. 1787. Mantissa insectorum . . ., vol. 2. 2, 382 pp. Crist. Gottl. Proft, Hafniae.

Harold, E. von. 1869. Berichtigungen und Zusatze zum Catalogus Coleopterorum synonymicus
et systematicus. Coleopterologische Hefte, 5: 112-119, 122-125.

Holynski, R. 1993. A reassessment of the internal classification of the Buprestidae Leach
(Coleoptera). Crystal, Series Zoologica, 1: 1-42.

Kolibaé, J. 2001. Classification and phylogeny of the Buprestoidea (Insecta: Coleoptera). Acta
Musei Moraviae, Scientiae Biologicae (Brno), 85: 113-184.

Miihle, H. 1980. Ergebnisse der Albanien-Expedition des Deutschen Entomologischen
Institutes. 96. Beitrag, Coleoptera: Buprestidae. Beitrdge zur Entomologie, Berlin, 30(2):
369-383.

Piller, M. & Mitterpacher, L. 1783. Iter per Poseganum .. . 147 pp. Budae.

Volkovitsh, M.G. 1979. A review of Palaearctic groups of the tribe Acmaeoderini (Coleoptera,
Buprestidae). Entomologicheskoe Obozrenie, 58(2): 333-354. [In Russian] [English
translation: Entomological Review, 58(2)(1980): 78-99].

Volkovitsh, M.G. 2001. The comparative morphology of antennal structures in Buprestidae
(Coleoptera): evolutionary trends, taxonomic and phylogenetic implications. Part 1. Acta
Musei Moraviae, Scientiae Biologicae (Brno), 86: 43-169.

Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 60: 1.

Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).

34 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003

Case 3243

Lyda latifrons Fallén, 1808 and L. gyllenhali Dahibom, 1835
(currently Pamphilius latifrons and P. gyllenhali; Insecta,
Hymenoptera): proposed conservation of usage of the specific names
by designation of a neotype for Lyda latifrons

Akihiko Shinohara

Department of Zoology, National Science Museum, 3—23—1 Hyakunin-cho,
Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 169-0073 Japan (e-mail: shinohar@kahaku.go.jp)

Matti Viitasaari

Department of Applied Biology, P.O. Box 27, University of Helsinki,
FIN-00014 Helsinki, Finland (e-mail: matti.viitasaari@helsinki.fi)

Veli Vikberg

Liinalammintie 11 as. 6, FIN-14200 Turenki, Finland
(e-mail: veli.vikberg@mail.htk.fi)

Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 75.6 of the Code, is to
conserve the existing usage of the names Lyda latifrons Fallén, 1808 and Lyda
gyllenhali Dahlbom, 1835 (currently Pamphilius latifrons and P. gyllenhali) for two
species of Palaearctic sawfly (family PAMPHILIIDAE) by designation of a neotype for
Lyda latifrons. The holotype of L. latifrons is a specimen of L. gyllenhali, but
acceptance of this would lead to the transfer of the name L. J/atifrons to the taxon
always known as L. gyllenhali. It is proposed that current usage of these specific
names is conserved by designating the lectotype of L. maculosa Zaddach, 1866 as the
neotype of Lyda latifrons.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; PAMPHILIDAE; Pamphilius latifrons; Pamphilius
gyllenhali; Palaearctic; sawflies.

1. Fallén (1808, p. 226) described a species of sawfly (sub-order Symphyta, family
PAMPHILIIDAE) On the basis of only male specimens from Sweden and named it Lyda
latifrons. The holotype was not traced in the Fallén, Dahlbom, or Thomson
collections in Sweden and is probably lost (Benes, 1976, p. 162). Since its original
publication, Fallén’s name, in its original combination or in the current combination
of Pamphilius latifrons, has been constantly applied to a seldom collected but
characteristic sawfly species. This species is distributed in Europe and eastern Siberia.
Its larvae feed on poplar (Populus spp.) and probably also on willow (Salix spp.).

2. However, Vikberg (2002, p. 456) has shown that Fallén’s original description of
Lyda latifrons does not fit the male of the species currently known as Lyda Jatifrons.
Fallén was actually describing a species that is currently known as Pamphilius
gyllenhali (Dahlbom, 1835). The name of this taxon was originally published as Lyda

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 35

gyllenhali Dahlbom, 1835 (p. 40, fig. 1). As a result, the name Pamphilius gyllenhali
is formally a junior synonym of the name Pamphilius latifrons, but it has not been
used in this sense. The species currently known as Pamphilius latifrons (Fallén, 1808)
is in fact conspecific with another type of sawfly that is known as Pamphilius
maculosus (Zaddach, 1866) and originally named with the binomen Lyda maculosa
Zaddach, 1866 (p. 166). Benes (1976, p. 162) designated a female lectotype for L.
maculosa, which he took to be conspecific with P. latifrons as normally understood.
Blank et al. (1998, p. 26) agreed with this.

3. As explained in para. 2 above, the species that Fallén actually described and
named Lyda latifrons has since been known as Pamphilius gyllenhali (Dahlbom,
1835). It is an uncommon but well known European species which, like P. latifrons
auct. (= P. maculosus), is associated with willow (Salix spp.). It is under the name of
P. gyllenhali that the taxon has been referred to in all literature concerning sawfly
systematics, faunistics and biology. No synonyms have been recognized for this
taxon. Klima (1937, p. 54) cited 21 references and Shinohara (1995, p. 49) gave an
additional 48 references that use the name Pamphilius gyllenhali, including Zaddach
(1866), Thomson (1871), André (1879-1882), Dalla Torre (1894), Konow (1897),
Enslin (1917), Gussakovskij (1935), Berland (1947), Benson (1951), Chambers (1952),
Moczar & Zombori (1973), Benes (1974), Viitasaari (1982), Achterberg & Aartsen
(1986), Midtgaard et al. (1987), Pesarini & Pesarini (1988), Zhelochovtsev (1988),
Magis (1994), Liston (1995) and Taeger et al. (1998).

4. The meaning of the name Pamphilius gyllenhali (Dahlbom, 1835) is well
established in the entomological literature and it would not serve nomenclatural
stability to allow this name to be replaced as a junior subjective synonym of the name
Pamphilius latifrons (Fallén, 1808), especially as the name Pamphilius latifrons
has been used until now for a different, but closely related species, also known as
P. maculosus (Zaddach, 1866), that has a similar distributional range and possibly
similar host-plants. In order to avoid any confusion in the future, we propose that the
Commission conserves the names P. Jatifrons (Fallén, 1808) and P. gyllenhali
(Dahlbom, 1835) in their current usage by designating a neotype for Lydia latifrons
Fallén, 1808 that is conspecific with “P. Jatifrons’ in the current sense and with
P. maculosus (Zaddach, 1866). The most suitable specimen would be the female
lectotype of Lydia maculosa Zaddach, 1866 designated by Benes (1976, p. 162). The
specimen is labelled ‘Type’ [red label], ‘steckte mit maculosa’, ‘maculosa’, “Zool. Mus.
Berlin’; ‘Lectotype’ [red label]. The underside of this label reads: ‘maculosa Zd.
Benes, 1971’, ‘Pamphilius latifrons Fall. 2 det. Benes 71, “Pamphilius latifrons
(Fallén) Det. A. Shinohara, 1995’. The specimen is kept in the Museum fur
Naturkunde, Berlin.

5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:

(1) to use its plenary power to set aside all previous type fixations for the nominal

species Jatifrons Fallén, 1808, as published in the binomen Lyda Jatifrons, and
to designate the female specimen that is held in the Museum fiir Naturkunde,
Berlin, and referred to in para. 4 above as the neotype;
(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) latifrons Fallén, 1808, as published in the binomen Lyda Jatifrons and as
defined by the neotype designated in (1) above;
(b) gyllenhali Dahlbom, 1835, as published in the binomen Lyda gyllenhali.

36 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003
References

Achterberg, C. van & Aartsen, B. van. 1986. The European Pamphiliidae (Hymenoptera:
Symphyta), with special reference to the Netherlands. Zoologische Verhandelingen, 234:
1-98.

André, E. 1879-1882. Species des Hyménoptéres d'Europe et d’ Algerie, vol. 1. 196, 563, 70 pp..
24 pls. Beaune.

Bene’, K. 1974. The Siberian species of Pamphilius Latr. related to P. histrio Latr. (Hymeno-
ptera, Pamphiliidae). Acta Entomologica Bohemoslovaca, 71: 298-314.

Benes, K. 1976. The Siberian species of the genus Pamphilius related to P. vafer (L.)
(Hymenoptera, Pamphiliidae). Acta Entomologica Bohemoslovaca, 73: 159-173.

Benson, R.B. 1951. Hymenoptera 2. Symphyta. Handbooks for the identification of British
insects, Royal Entomological Society of London, 6(2)(a): 1-49.

Berland, L. 1947. Hyménoptéres Tenthredoides. Faune de France, 47: 1-496.

Blank, S.M., Shinohara, A. & Taeger, A. 1998. Revisionary notes on Pamphiliid sawflies
(Hymenoptera, Symphyta: Pamphiliidae). Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift, 45: 17-31.

Chambers, V.H. 1952. The natural history of some Pamphilius species (Hym., Pamphiliidae).
Transactions of the Society for British Entomology, 11: 125-141.

Dahlbom, G. 1835. Clavis novi hymenopterorum systematis .. . 5, 40 pp., 1 pl. Berling, Lundae.

Dalla Torre, C.G. 1894. Catalogus Hymenopterorum, Tenthredinidae incl. Uroceridae
(Phyllophaga & Xylophaga), vol. 1. 459 pp. Engelmann, Lipsiae.

Enslin, E. 1917. Die Tenthredinoidea Mitteleuropas VI. Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift.
1917: 539-662.

Fallén, C.F. 1808. Férs6k till uppstallning och bekrifning 4 de i Sverige fundne Arter af
Insect-Slagtet Tenthredo Linn. Kungliga Svenska Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingar, 29:
37-64, 98-124, 219-227.

Gussakoyskij, V.V. 1935. Chalastogastra (pt. 1). Faune de l'URSS (n.s. 1), Insectes Hyménop-
teres, vol. 2, part 1. xviii, 453 pp. Edition de l’Académie des Sciences de l' URSS, Moscou,
Leningrad. [In Russian with German summary].

Klima, A. 1937. Pamphiliidae in Hedicke, H. (Ed.), Hymenopterorum Catalogus, vol. 3. 84 pp.
Junk, Gravenhage.

Konow, F.W. 1897. Systematische und kritische Bearbeitung der Blattwespen-Tribus Lydini. I,
II. Annalen des K. K. Naturhistorischen Hofmuseums, Wien, 12: 1-32, 231-255.

Liston, A.D. 1995. Compendium of European sawflies. 190 pp. Chalastos Forestry, Gottfrieding.

Magis, N. 1994. Répertoire des Mouches 4 scie reconnues en Belgique et au Grand-Duché de
Luxembourg (Hymenoptera: Symphyta). Notes fauniques de Gembloux, 28: 3-52.

Midtgaard, F., Lomholt, O. & Koch, F. 1987. The Danish Xyelidae and Pamphiliidae
(Hymenoptera). Entomologiske Meddelelser, 55: 31-38.

Moezar, L. & Zombori, L. 1973. Levéldarazs-Alkatuak I.—Tenthredinoidea I. Fauna
hungariae, 111: 1-128.

Pesarini, C. & Pesarini, F. 1988. Nuovi reperti interessanti di Imenotteri Sinfiti italiani
(Hymenoptera Symphyta). Bollettino della Societa entomologica Italiana, 119: 163-172.

Shinohara, A. 1995. Pamphilius histrio (Hymenoptera, Pamphiliidae) and its close relatives.
Bulletin of the National Science Museum, (A)21: 37-70.

Taeger, A., Altenhofer, E., Blank, S.M., Jansen, E., Kraus, M., Pschorn-Walcher, H. & Ritzau,
C. 1998. Kommentare zur Biologie, Verbreitung und Gefahrdung der Pflanzenwespen
Deutschlands (Hymenoptera, Symphyta). Pp. 49-135 in Taeger, A. & Blank, S.M. (Eds.),
Pflanzenwespen Deutschlands (Hymenoptera, Symphyta), Kommentierte Bestandsauf-
nahme. Goecke & Evers, Keltern.

Thomson, C.G. 1871. Hymenoptera Scandinaviae, 1. 342 pp. Ohlsson, Lundae.

Viitasaari, M. 1982. Sahapistidiset 2, Xyeloidea ja Megalodontoidea. Department of
Agricultural and Forest Zoology, University of Helsinki, Reports, 5: \-72.

Vikberg, V. 2002. Rearing experiments on Finnish species of Pamphiltidae (Hymenoptera),
with special emphasis on the egg laying behaviour. Pp. 439-459 in Viitasaari, M. (Ed.),
Sawflies 1 (Hymenoptera, Symphyta). Tremex Press, Helsinki.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 37

Zaddach, G. 1866. Beobachtungen tiber die Arten der Blatt- und Holtzwespen von C.G.A.
Brischke, Hauptlehrer an der altstadtischen evangelischen Knabenschule in Danzig,
und Dr. Gustav Zaddach, Professor in K6nigsberg, mitgetheilt von Zaddach (Dritte
Abhandlung). Lydidae. Schriften der kéniglichen physikalisch-6konomischen Gesellschaft
zu Koénigsberg, 6(2): 104-202.

Zhelochoytsey, A.N. 1988. Podotryad Symphyta (Chalastogastra) — Sidyachebryukhie.
Pp. 7-234 in Zhelochovtsev, A.N., Tobias, V.I. & Kozlov, M.A. (Eds.), Opredeliteli po
faune USSR, II, Pereponchatokrylye, Shestaya chast. Nauka, Leningrad.

Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 59: 161.

Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).

Left — Pamphilius latifrons (Fallén, 1808), female specimen from Britain, length c. 12 mm.
Right — Pamphilius gyllenhali (Dahlbom, 1835), female specimen from Finland, length c. 10 mm.

38 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003

Case 3225

Phymaturus Gravenhorst, 1837 and Lacerta palluma Molina, 1782
(currently Phymaturus palluma; Reptilia, Sauria): proposed
conservation of usage of the names by designation of a neotype for
Lacerta palluma Molina, 1782

Richard Etheridge and Jay M. Savage

Department of Biology, San Diego State University, San Diego, California,
92182-4614 U.S.A. (e-mail: rether@sunstroke.sdsu.edu)

Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 75.6 of the Code, is to
conserve the widespread existing usage of the generic name Phymaturus Gravenhorst,
1837 and the specific name P. palluma (Molina, 1782) for a genus and a species
of lizard (family LIOLAEMIDAE) from South America by designating the holotype of
Centrura flagellifer Bell, 1843 as the neotype of Lacerta palluma Molina, 1782.
Phymaturus and P. palluma have been used in this sense since the name L. palluma
was first misapplied by Gravenhorst in 1837. In this application it is accepted that the
valid name for Molina’s lizard species will be Callopistes maculatus Gravenhorst,
1837.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Reptilia; LIOLAEMIDAE; TEUDAE; Callopistes;
Phymaturus; Callopistes maculatus; Phymaturus palluma; lizard; South America.

1. Molina (1782, p. 217) described a species of lizard (family TEIDAE) from Chile
and named it Lucerta palluma after an Araucanian Indian name; palma is a noun
in apposition. In the same work (1782, p. 345) and in its second edition (Molina,
1810, p. 189), Molina then used a different spelling for the generic name, referring to
the taxon as Lacerta palluma. In so doing he acted as the First Reviser and selected
Lacerta palluma as the valid spelling: (see Article 24 of the Code).

2. Gravenhorst (1837, p. 749, pl. 55, fig. 2) placed what he thought was the nominal
species Lacerta palluma Molina, 1782 in a new genus which he named (p. 749)
Phymaturus. Lacerta palluma Molina, 1782 is thus the name of the type species
by monotypy of Phymaturus. He illustrated a dorsal view of the lizard’s head, but
had misidentified Molina’s taxon. Gravenhorst’s lizard belongs to the family
LIOLAEMIDAE, Whereas Molina’s lizard belongs to the family Tempar. Molina’s
specific name palluma has been mistakenly applied to Gravenhorst’s taxon for over
100 years.

3. Bell (1843, p. 25, pl. 14, fig. 2) described a new genus and species of lizard with
the name Centrura flagellifer (family LIOLAEMIDAE). His illustration of the holotype
(which is held in The Natural History Museum, London, with accession number
BMNH 1946.8.29.84 and examined by R.E. in 1968) is clearly that of the species
referred to as Phymaturus palluma by Gravenhorst (1837). Boulenger (1885, p. 184)
synonymized Centrura flagellifer with Phymaturus palluma sensu Gravenhorst, 1837.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 39

4. Cei & Lescure (1985, p. 452) showed that the species named Lacerta palluma
by Molina (1782) is the lizard named Callopistes maculatus by Gravenhorst, 1837
(p. 744; family TEUDAE). C. maculatus is, by monotypy, the type species of Callopistes
Gravenhorst, 1837 (p. 743).

5. In an attempt to rectify the situation caused by Gravenhorst’s misidentification
of Lacerta palluma Molina, 1782, Cei & Lescure (1985, p. 456) used the next available
generic name, Centrura Bell, 1843 (p. 25) whose type species by monotypy is Centrura
flagellifer Bell, 1843 as the substitute name for Phymaturus.

6. Later, Lescure & Cei (1991, p. 174) decided on a new approach to resolving the
confusion created by Gravenhorst’s misidentification of Lacerta palluma Molina.
They suggested that the Commission might use its plenary power to designate
Centrura flagellifer Bell, 1843 as the type species of Phymaturus Gravenhorst, 1837,
citing Article 70b of the second (1964) edition of the Code as the justification for this
action. However, this proposal was never brought to the Commission.

7. Veloso et al. (2000, p. 258), following Cei & Lescure (1985), stated that the
species described by Molina (1782) as Lacerta palluma is a senior synonym of the te1id
lizard Callopistes maculatus Gravenhorst, 1837. They designated a neotype (which is
held in the National Museum of Natural History, Chile, with the accession number
2909) for Lacerta palluma in order to give ‘taxonomic stability to the name
Callopistes palluma (Molina, 1782) and also the name [sic] Phymaturus flagellifer
(Bell, 1843) = Phymaturus palluma [of authors other than Molina, 1782)’.

8. In our opinion, none of the actions by Cei & Lescure (1985), Lescure & Cei
(1991) or Veloso et al. (2000, p. 258) best serves nomenclatural stability. The lizard
taxon mistakenly called Phymaturus palluma (Molina, 1782) by Gravenhorst in 1837
is of great scientific interest because of its herbivorous diet, viviparous reproduction,
saxicolous habits, possession of sex chromosomes and occurrence at high elevations.
As a result, it has appeared in numerous publications but under the incorrect name
of P. palluma (Molina, 1782). Recent examples of usage of this name are de Queiroz,
1982; Arnold, 1984; Bee de Speroni, Cabrera & Manca, 1984; Lamborot &
Navarro-Suarez, 1984; Shine, 1985; Etheridge & de Queiroz, 1988; Hallermann, 1994;
Etheridge, 1995; Grimalt et al., 1995; McGuire, 1996; Reeder & Wiens, 1996; Schulte
et al., 1998; Schulte et al., 1999 and Etheridge & Espinoza, 2000.

9. We propose that the Commission designate the holotype of Centrura flagellifer
Bell, 1843 (see para. 3 above) as the neotype of Lacerta palluma Molina, 1782 to
conserve the existing and widespread usage of the generic name Phymaturus
Gravenhorst, 1837 and the specific name of Lacerta palluma Molina, 1782. Following
this, Centrura and C. flagellifer Bell, 1844 will be junior objective synonyms of
Phymaturus and P. palluma respectively, and the valid name for the lizard described
by Molina will be Callopistes maculatus Gravenhorst, 1837 (see para. 4 above).

10. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to use its plenary power to set aside all previous type fixations for the nominal
species Lacerta palluma Molina, 1782 and to designate the specimen BMNH
1946.8.29.84, referred to in para. 3 above, as the neotype;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) Phymaturus Gravenhorst, 1837 (gender: masculine), type species by

monotypy Lacerta palluma Molina, 1782;

40 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003

(b) Callopistes Gravenhorst, 1837 (gender: masculine), type species by

monotypy Callopistes maculatus Gravenhorst, 1838;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the folowing names:

(a) palluma Molina, 1782, as published in the binomen Lucerta (sic) palluma
and as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above (specific name of the
type species of Phymaturus Gravenhorst, 1837);

(b) maculatus Gravenhorst, 1837, as published in the binomen Callopistes
maculatus (specific name of the type species of Callopistes Gravenhorst,
1837).

References

Arnold, E.N. 1984. Variation in the cloacal and hemipenial muscles in lizards and its bearing
on their relationships. Symposia of the Zoological Society of London, 52: 47-85.

Bee de Speroni, N.T., Cabrera, M.R. & Manca, L. 1984. Consideraciones sobre la osteologia
craneal, hioides, esterndn y lengua de Phymaturus palluma (Molina, 1782) (Sauria,
Iguanidae). Historia Natural (Corrientes, Argentina), 3(24): 197-212.

Bell, T. 1843. Reptiles. Jn Darwin, C. (Ed.), Zoology of the Voyage of H.M.S. Beagle under the
Command of Capt. Fitzroy R.N., during the years 1832 to 1836, vol. 5. 51 pp. Smith, Elder
and Co., London.

Boulenger, G.A. 1885. Catalogue of the lizards in the British Museum (Natural History), Ed. 2,
vol. 2. xii, 497 pp. London.

Cei, J.M. & Lescure, J. 1985. Identité de Lacerta palluma Molina, 1782, et revalidation de
Centrura flagellifer Bell, 1843 (Reptilia, Sauria). Bulletin Muséum National d'Histoire
Naturelle (Paris), Series 7(4), section A, 2: 451-459.

de Queiroz, K. 1982. The scleral ossicles of sceloporine iguanids: a re-examination with
comments on their phylogenetic significance. Herpetologica, 38(2): 302-311.

Etheridge, R. 1995. Redescription of Ctenoblepharys adspersa Tschudi, 1845, and the tax-
onomy of Liolaeminae (Reptilia: Squamata: Tropiduridae). American Museum Novitates,
3142: 1-34.

Etheridge, R. & de Queiroz, K. 1988. A phylogeny of Iguanidae. Pp. 283-367 in Estes, R. &
Pregill, G. (Eds.), Phylogenetic relationships of the lizard families: essays commemorating
Charles L. Camp. Stanford University Press, California.

Etheridge, R. & Espinoza, R.E. 2000. Taxonomy of the Liolaeminae (Squamata: Iguania:
Tropiduridae) and a semi-annotated bibliography. Smithsonian Herpetological Informa-
tion Service, 126: 1—65.

Gravenhorst, J.L.C. 1837. Beitrage zur genauern Kenntniss einiger Eidechsgattungen. Nova
Acta Academiae Caesarea Leopoldino-Carolinae Germaninicae Naturae Curiosorum, 18(2):
712-784

Grimalt, P.E., Castro, L.P., Mayorga, L.S. & Bertini, F. 1995. Epididymal acid hydrolases in
the annual reproductive cycle of two lizards. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology,
112A(2): 321-325.

Hallermann, J. 1994. Zur Morphologie der Ethmoidalregion der Iguania (Squamata) — eine
vergleichend-anatomische Untersuchung. Bonner Zoologische Monographien, 35: 1-33.

Lamborot, M. & Navarro-Suarez, M. 1984. Karyotypes and sex determination in Phymaturus
palluma Molina (Iguanidae). Herpetologica, 40(3): 58-264.

Lescure, J. & Cei, C.M. 1991. L’espéce-type du genre Phymaturus Gravenhorst, 1838 (Reptilia,
Sauria). Bollettino del Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali, 9(1): 173-175.

McGuire, J.A. 1996. Phylogenetic systematics of crotaphytid lizards (Reptilia: Iguania:
Crotaphytidae). Bulletin of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, 32: 1-143.

Molina, G.I. 1782. Saggio sulla storia naturale del Chili. 375 pp. Stamperia di S. Tommaso
d’Aquino, Bologna.

Molina, G.I. 1810. Saggio sulla storia naturale del Chili, Ed. 2. 308 pp. Fratelli Masie Comp,
Bologna.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 41

Reeder, T.W. & Wiens, J. 1996. Evolution of the lizard family Phrynosomatidae as inferred
from diverse types of data. Herpetological Monographs, 10: 43-84.

Schulte, J.A., Macey, J.R., Espinoza, R.E. & Larson, A. 1999. Phylogenetic relationships in the
iguanid lizard genus Liolaemus: multiple origins of viviparous reproduction and evidence
for recurring Andean vicariance and dispersal. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society
of London, 69: 75-102.

Schulte, J.A., Macey, J.R., Larson, A. & Papenfuss, J. 1998. Molecular tests of phylogenetic
taxonomies: a general procedure and example using four subfamilies of the lizard family
Iguanidae. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 10(3): 367-376.

Shine, R. 1985. The evolution of viviparity in reptiles: an ecological analysis. Pp. 605-694 in
Gans, C. & Billet, F. (Eds.), Biology of the Reptilia, vol. 15, Development. John Wiley,
New York.

Veloso, A., Nunez, H. & Cei, J.M. 2000. Fixation and description of a neotype for Lacerta
palluma Molina 1782 (currently) — (Squamata: Tetidae). Bollettino del Museo Regionale di
Scienze Naturali, 17(1): 257-268.

Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 59: 1.

Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 S5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).

Benen

Tay Pes Sites >
tiene aera as

—

Phymaturus palluma (Molina, 1782) from Sierra de Uspallata, Mendoza Province, Argentina.

42 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003

Case 3240

Vespertilio nanus Peters, 1852 (currently Pipistrellus nanus;
Mammalia, Chiroptera): proposed conservation of the specific name

Meredith Happold

School of Botany and Zoology, Australian National University, Canberra,
A.C.T. 0200, Australia (e-mail: David. Happold@anu.edu.au)

Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to
conserve the widely used name Vespertilio nanus Peters, 1852 (currently Pipistrellus
nanus) for the African Banana bat (family vESPERTILIONIDAE). The name is threatened
by limited use of a senior subjective synonym P. africanus (Riippell, 1842).

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Chiroptera; VESPERTILIONIDAE; Pipistrellus
nanus; Banana bat; Africa.

1. Two bat (family VESPERTILIONIDAE) specimens collected from Shoa Province,
Ethiopia, and lodged in the Museum of Frankfurt am Main (= S.M.F.), were
catalogued with the registration numbers II.N.9*.a,b and were formally named as
Vespertilio pipistrellus varietas africanus by Ruppell (1842, p. 156). Subsequently,
Mertens (1925, p. 22) designated II.N.9*.a (now catalogued as S.M.F. 4306) as the
lectotype of V. pipistrellus africanus (skin with skull not extracted) and classified it in
a new synonymy as Pipistrellus kuhlii africanus. See Kock (2001) for an account of
Riippell’s (1842) other specimen (II.N.9*.b).

2. Koopman (1975, pp. 399-400) examined the lectotype of P. africanus (by then
its skull had been extracted), and stated that it represented a specimen of Pipistrellus
nanus (Peters, 1852), and that the name P. africanus (Ruppell, 1842) was a senior
synonym of P. nanus (Peters, 1852). The specific name of P. nanus was originally
published in the binomen Vespertilio nanus Peters, 1852 (p. 63, pl. 16, fig. 2).

3. Kock (2001) examined and measured the lectotype and concluded that its
characters and dimensions left no doubt that V. pipistrellus africanus represented the
same taxon that is currently known as P. nanus.

4. Kock (2001) listed nine publications in which the senior name, Pipistrellus
africanus, was adopted in place of Pipistrellus nanus (e.g. Ansell & Dowsett (1988,
p. 41); Dowsett et al. (1991, p. 258) and Dumont et al. (1999, p. 160)). However,
even though Koopman (1975, p. 399; see para. 2 above) identified the seniority of
the name P. africanus, the name Pipistrellus nanus has continued to be widely used,
occurring in at least 12 books on the mammals of Africa (e.g. Ansell (1978, p. 24);
Delany & Happold (1979, pp. 91, 114, 134); Taylor (2000, pp. 105—107)). The
name P. nanus was also used in Corbet & Hill (1986, p. 78); Koopman (1993,
p. 222) and Nowak (1999, p. 427). These are three widely consulted books on
the mammals of the world. It was also used in Hutson et al. (2001, pp. 30, 78),
which is the I.U.C.N. Global Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan for
Microchiropteran bats.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 43

5. In addition, the name P. nanus has been used in at least 13 papers published
after 1975 on the taxonomy and/or distributions of Chiroptera in various African
countries or regions (e.g. Crawford-Cabral (1986, p. 17); Happold et al. (1987,
p. 372) and Van Cakenberghe et al. (1999, pp. 305-306); this list is far from
complete). The number of papers focused on reproduction, echolocation, diet and
other non-taxonomic and non-distributional subjects, and referring to P. nanus, has
not been assessed, but these papers are numerous.

6. Furthermore, there have been at least eight publications after 1975 focused on
the biology or systematics of this species, with Pipistrellus nanus in their titles (e.g.
Laval & Laval, 1977; Von Schliemann & Schlosser, 1978; Happold & Happold, 1990,
1996 and Bernard et al., 1997). Few (if any) other African microbats have received
as much attention to their general biology as this species and, because they are
frequently encountered in the furled leaves of banana plants, few species are so well
known in Africa.

7. 1am aware of at least four publications in which it has been suggested or implied
that the name P. nanus should be conserved in the interests of nomenclatural
stability. These are Largen et al. (1974, pp. 243-244); Ansell (1978, p. 24); Meester
et al. (1986, pp. 53-54) and Grubb et al. (1998, p. 85).

8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to use its plenary power to suppress the specific name africanus Riippell, 1842,
as published in the trinomen Vespertilio pipistrellus africanus, for the purposes
of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy;

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name nanus
Peters, 1852, as published in the binomen Vespertilio nanus;

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in
Zoology the name africanus Ruppell, 1842, as published in the trinomen
Vespertilio pipistrellus africanus and as suppressed in (1) above.

References

Ansell, W.F.H. 1978. The mammals of Zambia. 126 pp. National Parks and Wildlife Service,
Chilanga, Zambia.

Ansell, W.F.H. & Dowsett, R.J. 1988. Mammals of Malawi: an annotated checklist and atlas.
170 pp. Trendrine Press, Cornwall.

Bernard, R.T.F., Happold, D.C.D. & Happold, M. 1997. Sperm storage in the banana bat
(Pipistrellus nanus) from tropical latitudes in Malawi. Journal of Zoology, London, 241:
161-174.

Corbet, G.B. & Hill, J.E. 1986. A world list of mammalian species, Ed. 2. 254 pp. British
Museum (Natural History), London.

Crawford-Cabral, J. 1986. A list of Angolan Chiroptera with notes on their distribution.
Garcia de Orta, Sér. Zool., Lisboa, 13: 7-48.

Delany, M.J. & Happold, D.C.D. 1979. Ecology of African mammals. 434 pp. Longman,
London.

Dowsett, R.J., Harrison, D.L. & Granjon, L. 1991. Bats (Chiroptera) from the Mayombe and
lower Kouilou (with a checklist for Congo). Tauraco Research Report, 4: 251-263.
Dumont, E.R., Etzel, K. & Hempel, D. 1999. Bat salivary proteins segregate according to diet.

Mammalia, 63(2): 159-166.

Grubb, P., Jones, T.S., Davies, A.G., Edberg, E., Starin, E.D. & Hill, J.-E. 1998. Mammals of

Ghana, Sierra Leone and The Gambia. 265 pp. Trendrine Press, Cornwall.

44 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003

Happold, D.C.D. & Happold, M. 1990. The domiciles, reproduction, social organisation and
sex ratios of the Banana Bat, Pipistrellus nanus (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) in Malawi,
Central Africa. Zeitschrift fiir Sdugetierkunde, 55: 145-160.

Happold, D.C.D. & Happold, M. 1996. The social organisation and population dynamics of
leaf-roosting banana bats, Pipistrellus nanus (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae), in Malawi,
east-central Africa. Mammalia, 60: 517-544.

Happold, D.C.D., Happold, M. & Hill, J.E. 1987. The bats of Malawi. Mammalia, 51: 337-414.

Hutson, A.M., Mickleburgh, S.P. & Racey, P.A. 2001. Microchiropteran bats: global status
survey and conservation action plan. 258 pp. 1.U.C.N./S.S.C. Chiroptera Specialist Group,
Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge.

Kock, D. 2001. Identity of the African Vespertilio hesperida Temminck 1840 (Mammalia,
Chiroptera, Vespertilionidae). Senckenbergiana biologica, 81: 277-283.

Koopman, K.F. 1975. Bats of the Sudan. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History,
154: 353-444.

Koopman, K.F. 1993. Order Chiroptera. Pp. 137—241 in Wilson, D.E. & Reeder, D.M. (Eds.),
Mammal Species of the World, Ed. 2. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.

Largen, M.J., Kock, D. & Yalden, D.W. 1974. Catalogue of the mammals of Ethiopia. 1.
Chiroptera. Monitore Zoologico Italiano, 16: 221-298.

Laval, R.K. & Laval, M.L. 1977. Reproduction and behaviour of the African Banana Bat,
Pipistrellus nanus. Journal of Mammalogy, 58: 403-410.

Meester, J.A.J., Rautenbach, I.L., Dippenaar, N.J..& Baker, C.M. 1986. Classification of
southern African mammals. 359 pp. Transvaal Museum Monograph No. 5.

Mertens, R. 1925. Verzeichnis der Saugetier-Typen des Senckenbergischen Museums. Sencken-
bergiana, 7(1/2): 18-37.

Nowak, R.M. 1999. Walker’s Mammals of the World, Ed. 6, vol. 1. 836 pp. John Hopkins
University Press, Baltimore and London.

Peters, W. 1852. Naturwissenschaftliche Reise nach Mozambique auf Befehl seiner Majestdt des
Konigs Friedrich Wilhelm IV. in den Jahren 1842 bis 1848 ausgefiihrt. Zoologie, 1.
Sdugethiere. Reiner, Berlin.

Riippell, E. 1842. Verzeichnis der in dem Museum der Senckenbergischen naturforschenden
Gesellschaft aufgestellten Sammlungen. Erste Abtheilung: Saugethiere und deren Skelette.
Museum Senckenbergianum, 3: 145-196.

Taylor, P.J. 2000. Bats of southern Africa. 206 pp. University of Natal Press.

Van Cakenberghe, V., De Vree, F. & Leirs, H. 1999. On a collection of bats (Chiroptera) from
Kikwit, Democratic Republic of the Congo. Mammalia, 63(3): 291-322.

Von Schliemann, H. & Schlosser, E. 1978. Zur Frage der Festheftung von Pipistrellus nanus in
den Blattiiten von Banananpflanzen. Zeitschrift fiir Sdugetierkunde, 43: 243-244.

Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 59: 70.

Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 45

Case 3204

Viverra maculata Gray, 1830 (currently Genetta maculata; Mammalia,
Carnivora): proposed conservation of the specific name

P. Gaubert!, M. Tranier!, G. Veron’, D. Kock’, A.E. Dunham’,
P.J. Taylor*, C. Stuart®, T. Stuart” and W.C. Wozencraft®
(Addresses on p. 47)

Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.5 of the Code, is to
conserve the specific name of Viverra maculata Gray, 1830 (currently Genetta
maculata; family VIVERRIDAE) for a species of African genet (a placental carnivore).
The name is a junior primary homonym of Viverra maculata Kerr, 1792 (currently
Dasyurus maculatus), which is used for a marsupial mammal commonly known as the
Tiger quoll (family DasyuRIDAE). However, the names apply to taxa that have not
been considered congeneric since the early 19th century.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Carnivora; VIVERRIDAE; Genetta maculata;
Dasyurus maculatus; Rusty-spotted genet; Africa.

1. Gray (1830, p. 9) described a new nominal species of African genet, which he
named Viverra maculata (now Genetta maculata; family vIVERRIDAE). This species is
commonly called the Rusty-spotted genet (see Crawford-Cabral, 1981).

2. Viverra maculata Gray, 1830 is a junior primary homonym of Viverra maculata
Kerr, 1792 (p. 170), a name used for a marsupial (the Tiger quoll) that is now known
scientifically as Dasyurus maculatus (family DAsYURIDAE). This has led some authors
to regard the junior name as invalid (see Crawford-Cabral, 1970, 1973, 1981;
Rosevear, 1974; Coetzee, 1977; Ansell, 1978; Grubb et al., 1998). This was indeed the
case until 2000, but the current edition of the Code (Article 23.9.5) prescribes that the
case should be referred to the Commission to conserve the name Genetta maculata
(Gray, 1830).

3. Viverra maculata Kerr, 1792 (marsupial mammal) and Viverra maculata Gray,
1830 (placental mammal) apply to taxa that have not been considered congeneric
since the early 19th century. Indeed, Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (1803, 1804) considered
Viverra maculata Kerr, 1792 (the name of the marsupial mammal) to be a senior
synonym of his own name Dasyurus macrourus Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1803. From
that time onwards, the marsupial species was included in the genera Dasyurops or
Dasyurus (see Haltenorth, 1958; Mahoney & Ride, 1988; Groves, 1993) rather than
in the genus Viverra. Viverra maculata Gray, 1830 (the name of the placental
mammal) was considered by Gray (1843) to be a junior synonym of Genetta
senegalensis (Fischer, 1829), although it was incorrect. Since Gray (1843), the
nominal species Viverra maculata Gray, 1830 has been placed in Genetta, and not in
Viverra (see Matschie, 1902; Schwartz, 1930; Schlawe, 1981).

4. There has been long debate about which specific name should be attributed to
the species that is known in the vernacular as the Rusty-spotted genet. The name

46 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003

Genetta rubiginosa Pucheran, 1855, which was commonly in use, can no longer be
used since the type specimen associated with this name has been found to belong
to another species that is currently known as Genetta thierryi Matschie, 1902
(see Schlawe, 1981; Crawford-Cabral, 1981; Crawford-Cabral & Fernandes, 1999;
Gaubert et al., 2001). The only available name that has also been used to denote this
species, either by including other species (see Schlawe, 1981; Fuller et al., 1990:
Wozencraft, 1993; Angelici et al., 1999; Angelici, 2000) or exclusively (see Gaubert
et al., 2002; Gaubert, in press), is G. maculata (Gray, 1830).

5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly

asked:

(1) to use its plenary power to rule that the specific name maculata Gray, 1830, as
published in the binomen Viverra maculata (family VIVERRIDAE), 1S not invalid
by reason of being a junior primary homonym of the specific name maculata
Kerr, 1792, as published in the binomen Viverra maculata (family DASYURIDAE);

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name maculata
Gray, 1830, as originally published in the binomen Viverra maculata (family
VIVERRIDAE), ruled in (1) above to be not invalid by reason of being a
junior primary homonym of the name Viverra maculata Kerr, 1792 (family
DASYURIDAE).

References

Angelici, F.M. 2000. Food habits and resource partitioning of Carnivores (Herpestidae,
Viverridae) in the rainforests of South-eastern Nigeria: preliminary results. Revue
d'Ecologie (Terre Vie), 55: 67-76.

Angelici, F.M., Grimod, I. & Politano, E. 1999. Mammals of the Eastern Niger Delta (Rivers
and Bayelsa States, Nigeria): an environment affected by gas-pipeline. Folia Zoologica,
48(4): 249-264.

Ansell, W.F.H. 1978. The mammals of Zambia. 126 pp. The National Parks and Wildlife
Service, Chilanga, Zambia.

Coetzee, C.G. 1977. Order Carnivora. Part 8 in Meester, J. & Setzer, H.W. (Eds.), The
mammals of Africa: an identification manual. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington
D.C.

Crawford-Cabral, J. 1970. As genetas da Africa Central. Separata do Bolletim do Instituto de
Investigagao Cientifica de Angola, 6(1): 3-33.

Crawford-Cabral, J. 1973. As genetas da Guiné Portuguesa e de Mogambique. ‘Livro de
Homenagem’ ao Professor Fernando Frade Viegas da Costa 70.° aniversario, Separata:
133-155.

Crawford-Cabral, J. 1981. The classification of the genets (Carnivora, Viverridae, genus
Genetta). Bolletim da Sociedade portuguesa de Ciéncias Naturais, 20: 97-114.

Crawford-Cabral, J. & Fernandes, C. 1999. A comment on the nomenclature of the
Rusty-spotted Genet. Small Carnivore Conservation, 21: 12.

Fuller, T.K., Biknevicius, A.R. & Kat, P.W. 1990. Movements and behavior of large spotted
genets (Genetta maculata Gray 1830) near Elmenteita, Kenya (Mammalia, Viverridae).
Tropical Zoology, 3: 13-19.

Gaubert, P. In press. Description of a new species of genet (Carnivora; Viverridae; genus
Genetta) and taxonomic revision of forest forms related to the Large-spotted Genet
complex. Mammalia.

Gaubert, P., Veron, G. & Tranier, M. 2001. An investigation of morpho-anatomical characters
within the genus Genetta (Carnivora, Viverridae), with a remark on Osbornictis, the
aquatic Genet. Pp. 81-89 in Denys, C., Granjon, L. & Poulet, A. (Eds.), African small
mammals. Paris.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 47

Gaubert, P., Veron, G. & Tranier, M. 2002. Genets and ‘Genet-like’ taxa (Carnivora,
Viverrinae): Phylogenetic analysis, systematics and biogeographic implications. Zoologi-
cal Journal of the Linnean Society, 134: 317-334.

Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, E. 1803. Note sur les espéces du genre Dasyure. Bulletin de la Société
Philomatique de Paris, 3(81): 258-259.

Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, E. 1804. Mémoire sur les espéces du genre Dasyure. Annales du
Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle de Paris, 3: 353-363.

Gray, J. 1830. Spicilegia Zoologica. 12 pp. Tretittel, Wirtz, London.

Gray, J. 1843. List of the specimens of Mammalia of the British Museum. 216 pp. British
Museum, London.

Groves, C.P. 1993. Order Dasyuromorphia. Pp. 29-42 in Wilson, D.E. & Reeder, D.M. (Eds.),
Mammal species of the world. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington & London.

Grubb, P., Jones, T.S., Davies, A.G., Edberg, E., Starin, E.D. & Hill, J.E. 1998. Mammals of
Ghana, Sierra Leone and the Gambia. 256 pp. Trendrine Press, Cornwall.

Haltenorth, T. 1958. Klassifikation der Saugetiere, | (1. Ordnung Kloakentiere, Monotremata
Bonaparte, 1838. 2. Ordnung Beuteltiere, Marsupialia Mliger, 1811 [= Didelphia Blainville,
1816]). Handbuch der Zoologie, 8(16): 1-40.

Kerr, R. 1792. The Animal Kingdom, or zoological system, of the celebrated Sir Charles
Linnaeus; Class 1. Mammalia. . ., vol. 1. 400 pp. Murray & Faulder, London.

Mahoney, J.A. & Ride, W.D.L. 1988. Dasyuridae. Pp. 14-33 in Walton, D.W. (Ed.), Zoological
Catalogue of Australia. Vol. 5. Mammalia. Australian Government Publishing Service,
Canberra.

Matschie, P. 1902. Ueber die individuellen und geographischen Abanderungen der
Ginsterkatzen. Verhandlungen des V internationalen Zoologen-Congresses zu Berlin, 1901:
1128-1144.

Rosevear, D. 1974. The Carnivores of West Africa. 548 pp. British Museum (Natural History),
London.

Schlawe, L. 1981. Material, Fundorte, Text- und Bildquellen als Grundlagen fir eine Artenliste
zur Revision der Gattung Genetta G. CUVIER, 1816. Zoologische Abhandlungen
Staatliches Museum fiir Tierkunde in Dresden, 37(4): 85-182.

Schwartz, E. 1930. Die Sammlung afrikanischer Saugetiere im Congo-Museum. Ginsterkatzen
(Gattung Genetta Oken). Revue de Zoologie et de Botanique Africaine, 19(2): 275-286.

Wozencraft, W.C. 1993. Order Carnivora. Pp. 279-348 in Wilson, D.E. & Reeder, D.M. (Eds.),
Mammal species of the world, Ed. 2. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington &
London.

Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 58: 161.

‘Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Laboratoire Zoologie: Mammiferes & Oiseaux,
55 rue Buffon, F-75005 Paris, France

?Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg, Senckenberg-Anlage 25, D-60325 Frankfurt am Main,
Germany

3 Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York, Stony Brook,
NY 11794, U.S.A.

4Durban Natural Science Museum, PO Box 4085, Durban 4000, Republic of South Africa
>African-Arabian Wildlife Research Centre, PO Box 6, Loxton 6985, Republic of
South Africa

Division of Natural Sciences, Bethel College, 1001 W. McKinley Ave., Mishawaka,
IN 46545, U.S.A.

Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).

48 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003

Comments on the neotypification of Protists, especially Ciliates (Protozoa,
Ciliophora)
(see BZN 59: 165-169)

(1) J.O. Corliss
P.O. Box 2729, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, U.S.A.

I am in agreement with my colleague Foissner that it is often impossible, when
attempting to establish needed neotypification of species of ubiquitous or cosmo-
politan microscopic protists (e.g. the ciliates; Finlay, 2002), to determine the exact or
original type locality or, even if this is known and accessible, to guarantee the
presence there of the same species at some particular later date. It follows that
carefully studied material (considered by an expert to be identical) should be
acceptable. New neotype material—when preserved on glass slides after proper
fixation and staining —is to be favored over drawings or illustrations, often made
long ago when only a few characteristics might have been known or thought
important, even though the latter are acceptable under the Code as representing types
for many organisms.

Proper neotype material, made available to workers around the world, will allow
detailed three-dimensional re-examination of the specimens on the slide. Although
today the modern techniques of electron microscopy and molecular studies are very
helpful for analyses of taxonomic and evolutionary interrelationships among groups
of protists, the morphological and anatomical details made visible —under light
(including phase) microscopes of high magnification and high resolution — are still
sufficient to differentiate morphospecies of the great majority of protists, certainly the
ciliates (Lee & Soldo, 1992).

Further misidentifications and misnamings, still great problems in taxonomic
protistology and thus biodiversity studies (Corliss, 2002) of these minute organisms,
can be prevented by avoiding an over-rigid application of Article 75.3.6 of the Code,
which requires that a neotype designation should provide “evidence that the neotype
came as nearly as practicable from the.original type locality’. The words ‘as nearly as
practicable’ provide the required degree of flexibility.

Additional references

Corliss, J.O. 2002. Biodiversity and biocomplexity of the protists and an overview of their
significant roles in maintenance of our biosphere. Acta Protozoologica, 41: 199-219.
Finlay, B.J. 2002. Global dispersal of free-living eukaryote species. Science, 296: 1061-1063.
Lee, J.J. & Soldo, A.T. (Eds.). 1992. Protocols in Protozoology. 588 pp. Society of Proto-

zoologists, Lawrence, Kansas.

(2) Professor Dr Weibo Song

Laboratory of Protozoology, Ocean University of China, Oingdao 266003,
Peoples Republic of China

As an alpha-taxonomist working with protozoa, I fully agree with Foissner’s
opinion. Almost all protozoa, especially the ciliates, have been subjected to a billion
years of distribution and migration and must now be considered to be fully

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 49

cosmopolitan. The concept of a ‘local species or taxon’ is meaningless with regard
to these animals. For example, Paramecium caudatum is morphologically and
genetically similar throughout the world, even between continents such as Asia
and Australia that have been separated for hundreds of millions of years.

I agree also that the lack of proper type material is causing great problems for
colleagues working in a number of fields that relate to protozoan animals. Most
described taxa do not have type material preserved. In some cases no material was
retained and in other cases where material is available it is often poorly preserved and
useless for identification.

In my opinion, Article 75.3.6 should be interpreted flexibly for protozoans and
especially for free-living ciliates. This article should not become a barrier to the
preparation where necessary of ciliate neotypes that will provide stability to
the taxonomy and nomenclature of this important group of animals.

Comment on the proposed conservation of the generic names Porites Link, 1807,
Galaxea Oken, 1815, Mussa Oken, 1815 and Dendrophyllia Blainville, 1830
(Anthozoa, Scleractinia)

(Case 2900; see BZN 52: 142-147, 328-329)

Mark J. Grygier
Lake Biwa Museum, Oroshimo 1091, Kusatsu, Shiga 525-0001, Japan

I sympathize with the intent of Prof Potts’s application. The DENDROPHYLLIIDAE
are the dominant coral reef-dwelling hosts of the PETRARCIDAE, parasitic crustaceans
that belong to my major group of interest, the Ascothoracida. Nonetheless, the
Commission cannot properly act upon these proposals without a clear demonstration
that the consequences of following the Code are intolerable. Examination of relevant
literature kindly made available to me by Dr S.D. Cairns (Smithsonian Institution)
shows that some parts of the application are unnecessary. In particular, the following
points were not addressed by Prof Potts:

1. If Porites Link, 1807 is rejected as a junior homonym, what is the next available
synonym to replace it (see Article 23.3.5 of the Code)? Has the next available
synonym ever been widely used and how widely is it known now?

According to the synonymy provided by Wells (1956, p. F393), Stylaraea
Milne-Edwards & Haime, 1851 is the next junior synonym of Porites Link, 1807,
although only questionably. In fact, this genus, with a single living species, is
generally regarded as separate from Porites within the porITIDAE (see Veron, 1986,
p. 234). If synonymy with Stylaraea is rejected, then Cosmoporites Duchaissing
& Michelotti, 1860 and Neoporites Duchaissing & Michelotti, 1860 (published simul-
taneously) are the next and apparently only other junior synonyms available. Neither
of these names has ever enjoyed the widespread usage hitherto accorded to Porites
Link, and it would probably be undesirable to replace Porites with one of them.

2. If Porites Link, 1807 is rejected as a junior homonym of Porites Cuvier, 1798, the
family name poritIDAE Gray, 1842 must be replaced by the next available junior
synonym or, lacking any, a name based on the replacement generic name (see Article
39). If there is an available junior synonym, what is it, has it ever been widely used,
and how widely is it known now?

50 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003

I have been unable to determine whether any family-group names based on other
genera included in the poriTIDAE (or on their synonyms) have ever been proposed.

3. When were the names Ga/axea and Mussa first published by an author later than
Oken (1815)? If there are no intervening synonyms, these names could be retained
and re-attributed to their proper authors and dates under the Code.

The first use of Galaxea following Oken (1815) was that of Milne-Edwards &
Haime (1851, p. 70), who provided a diagnosis as well as a reference to Oken’s work.
According to Wells (1956, p. F412), Galaxea has no junior synonyms; therefore
authorship of this genus could be attributed to Milne-Edwards & Haime, 1851 with
no further repercussions. It is unnecessary to conserve Oken (1815) as author of this
genus. Milne-Edwards & Haime (1851, pp. 70-71) included 13 nominal species in
Galaxea without naming a type species. As Galaxea fascicularis was listed among
them, Vaughan’s (1918) designation of this species as the type species of Galaxea
remains valid but the generic name remains threatened by Porites Cuvier, 1798, as
described in Prof Potts’s application.

According to Matthai (1928, p. 202), the first use of Mussa following Oken (1815)
was by Dana (1848) [sic] (actually 1846, S.D. Cairns, pers. comm.). According
to Wells (1956, p. F418), there is an intervening junior synonym Lithodendron
Schweigger, 1819 which would thus replace Mussa if Oken’s authority is not
approved. Prof Potts stated that Mussa has perhaps only two valid species, so
replacement of Mussa by Lithodendron, while undesirable, might not be intolerable.
Lithodendron and Mussa share the same type species Madrepora angulosa Pallas, 1766
therefore the priority threat posed by Porites Cuvier also exists for Lithodendron.

4. Family-group names would not be endangered whether Porites Cuvier replaced
Galaxea, Mussa or Dendrophyllia as a senior synonym. All three family-group names
based on these genera (GALAXEINAE Vaughan & Wells, 1943, MussIDAE Ortmann, 1890
and DENDROPHYLLIDAE Gray, 1847) would remain unchanged because Porites Cuvier
is not the basis of any available family-group name and because the replacement
would have taken place after 1961 (see Article 40.2). It is unnecessary for them to be
placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology as Prof Potts has
proposed. ¥

5. What criteria should be used for choosing a type species for Porites Cuvier if it
is not suppressed, and thus to determine whether Porites would replace Galaxea,
Mussa or Dendrophyllia?

Dendrophyllia is by far the most speciose genus threatened. It serves as the basis of
higher level taxa up to the suborder and has no problems of authorship so it should
be retained under any circumstance. As shown above, Galaxea also has no problems
of authorship or synonyms even if Oken (1815) remains disallowed. The generic name
Mussa would be replaced anyway if not made available from Oken (1815) therefore
its replacement by Porites Cuvier would probably be least disruptive of the three
choices. Perhaps the application by Prof Potts could have been be made simpler
by including a designation of Madrepora angulosa as type species of Porites
Cuvier, thus making Mussa its objective junior synonym. Then all that would be
needed is conservation and inclusion in the Official List of Mussa (or Lithodendron,
if the Commission votes against the availability of Mussa from Oken (1815)).
Dendrophyllia and Galaxea would no longer require special attention in this
regard.

n

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003

Additional references

Dana, J.D. 1846. United States Exploring Expedition during the Years 1838, 1839, 1840, 1541,
1842 under the command of Charles Wilkes, U.S.N., vol. 7. Zoophytes. vu, 740 pp.
Philadelphia.

Duchaissing, P. & Michelotti, J. 1860. Mémoire sur les coralliares des Antilles. Memorie della
Reale Accademie della Scienze de Torino, (2)19: 279-365.

Matthai, G. 1928. A monograph of the Recent meandroid Astraeidae. Catalogue of the
madreporarian corals in the British Museum (Natural History), vol. 7. v, 288 pp. London.

Milne-Edwards, H. & Haime, J. 1851. Monographie des polypiers fossiles des terrains
paleozoiques, précédée d’un tableau général de la classification des polypes. Archives du
Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, 5: 1-502.

Schweigger, A.F. 1819. Beobachtungen auf naturhistorischen Reisen ... Anatomisch-
physiologische Untersuchungen tiber Corallen: nebst ein Anhange, Bemerkungen tiber die
Bernstein enthaltend. xii, 127 pp. Berlin.

Comments on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Achatina janii
De Betta & Martinati, 1855 (currently Cecilioides janii; Mollusca, Gastropoda)
(Case 3233; see BZN 59: 77-81)

(1) Ruud A. Bank
Graan voor Visch 15318, NL-2132 EL Hoofddorp, The Netherlands

Gerhard Falkner

Bayerische Staatssammlung ftir Paldontologie und historische Geologie,
Richard-Wagner-Strasse 10/11, D-80333 Miinchen, Germany

Edmund Gittenberger

Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, Postbus 9517, NL-2300 RA Leiden,
The Netherlands

We ask the Commission, for the sake of universality in the scientific names of
animals, not to make use of its plenary power to suppress the name Cecilioides veneta
in favour of C. janii. The reason for this is that we do not agree with Giusti &
Manganelli (BZN 59: 79) that C. veneta (Strobel, 1855) is a ‘virtually unused name’.
In the last hundred years, C. veneta has been used in two well-known monographs
dealing with the malacofauna of the Stidtirol (Riezler, 1929, p. 161) and the
Dolomites (Thorson, 1930, p. 229). In addition, we do not agree with Giusti &
Manganelli (BZN 59: 77) that, after the publication of De Betta’s work (1864), the
specific name of C. janii (De Betta & Martinati, 1855) was used ‘by virtually all
subsequent authors’. In fact, the name C. aciculoides (De Cristofori & Jan, 1832) was
used for the snail species under consideration by Ehrmann (1933, p. 78), Eder (1914,
p. 85), Mermod (1930, p. 371) and Jaeckel (1962, p. 147). Only after Giusti’s 1976
work was C. janii used for this Cecilioides species.

Recently the name C. veneta has been used in two important monographs: the
Checklist of the European Continental Mollusca (CLECOM checklist) (Falkner,
Bank & von Proschwitz, 2001, p. 45) and the checklist of French continental molluscs
(Falkner, Ripken & Falkner, 2002, pp. 42, 116). The primary goal of the CLECOM
initiative is to produce a stable nomenclature for European non-marine molluscs by
carrying out nomenclatural revisions based on the provisions of the Code. The
CLECOM initiative is widely accepted.

52 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003

Additional references

Eder, L. 1914. Zur Fauna der Gehdusetragenden Landschnecken des Kantons Tessin. 150 pp.
Werner-Riehm, Basel.

Ehrmann, P. 1933. Mollusca. In Brohmer, P., Ehrmann, P. & Ulmer, G., Die Tierwelt
Mitteleuropas, vol. 2, pt. 1. 264 pp., 13 pls. Quelle & Meyer, Leipzig.

Falkner, G., Ripken, Th.E.J. & Falkner, M. 2002. Mollusques continentaux de France. Liste de
référence annotée et bibliographie. Patrimoines naturels, 52: 1-350.

Jaeckel, S.G.A. 1962. Erganzungen und Berichtigungen zum rezenten und quartaren Vorkom-
men der mitteleuropaischen Mollusken. Jn Brohmer, P., Ehrmann, P. & Ulmer, G., Die
Tierwelt Mitteleuropas, vol. 2, pt. 1. 264 pp., 13 pls. Quelle & Meyer, Leipzig.

Mermod, G. 1930. Catalogue des invertébrés de la Suisse. Fascicule 18. Gastéropodes. Georg,
Geneve.

(2) Folco Giusti and Giuseppe Manganelli

Dipartimento di Scienze Ambientali, Universita di Siena, Via Mattioli 4,
1-53100 Siena, Italy

In their comment above, Bank, Falkner & Gittenberger have not produced a single
argument to falsify the important points in our application (see paras. 6 and 7 in BZN
59: 79). For example, they note that the name Cecilioides veneta (Strobel, 1855) has
been used in ‘two well-known monographs’ dealing with the malacofauna of the
Stidtirol (Riezler, 1929 and Thorson, 1930). However, Bank, Falkner & Gittenberger
(2000, p. 100) recorded that they discovered the name C. veneta by ‘digging in the old
literature’. If the name was so well known, why was ‘digging’ required to discover it?
The use of C. veneta by Riezler and Thorson was noted in our application.

Bank, Falkner & Gittenberger also disagree that De Betta’s (1864) adoption of the
name Achatina janii was followed by ‘virtually all subsequent authors’. We have
shown this to be the case in our application. In para. 5 of our application, we
recorded that there were at least 27 publications by 33 different authors between 1971
and 1999 (a period of 29 years) in which the name had been used. This considerable
amount of usage contrasts with the two monographs and four references produced by
Bank, Falkner & Gittenberger for the use of C. veneta during the last hundred years.
These publications are demonstrably not all subsequent to the paper by Giusti (1976).

Some time ago (see Giusti, 1976, p: 234) it became clear to us that the continued
use of the name C. aciculoides sensu De Betta (1852) by some authors (mainly
German zoologists) occurred because De Betta’s papers (and those of other Italian
authors who adopted the replacement name C. janii) remained unknown because of
language difficulties.

Finally, Bank, Falkner & Gittenberger note that the aim of the CLECOM
initiative is the production of a stable nomenclature for European non-marine
molluscs based on the provisions of the Code. Obviously, this aim is not unique to the
CLECOM group; all malacologists are concerned with this task. The CLECOM
initiative may be ‘widely accepted’, but some of its proposals have been questioned
by some malacologists. Bank, Falkner & Gittenberger themselves (2000) noted that
‘the name Cecilioides veneta (Strobel, 1855) has to be used for a species which has in
the past been referred to as C. aciculoides or C. janii’. Replacement of the well-known
name C. janii is contrary to the Code and its provisions for maintaining stability in
nomenclature (see Article 23.9.3).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 53

Comment on the proposed conservation of usage of Chrysodema Laporte & Gory,
1835 and Iridotaenia Deyrolle, 1864 (Insecta, Coleoptera) by the designation of
C. sonnerati Laporte & Gory, 1835 as the type species of Chrysodema

(Case 3193; see BZN 59: 185-187, 281)

Richard Westcott

Entomology Museum, Oregon Department of Agriculture, 635 Capitol, N.E. Salem,
Oregon, U.S.A.

I support this proposal wholeheartedly, as it will conserve the existing usage of the
generic names for two large, well known and widely studied groups of beetles.

Comment on the proposed conservation of Pelastoneurus Loew, 1861 (Insecta,
Diptera)
(Case 3130; see BZN 59: 196-197)

Jeffrey M. Cumming and J. Richard Vockeroth

Systematic Entomology Section, ECORC, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada,
Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0C6 Canada

We support the application of Brooks, Wheeler & Evenhuis (made under Article
23.9.3 of the Code) for conservation of the generic name Pe/astoneurus Loew, 1861
by suppression of the generic name Paracleius Bigot, 1859. Although it is a junior
synonym, the name Pelastoneurus has been used by almost all authors for this diverse
and widespread genus of flies. Suppression of the generic name Paracleius has been
previously recommended by Robinson (1970) and Dyte (1975).

Furthermore, use of the senior synonym Paracleius would continue to cause
confusion with the generic name Paraclius Loew, 1864, which is used for a separate
nominal genus with a nearly cosmopolitan distribution. The genus Paraclius was
established by Loew (1864, p. 97) in the same publication in which he (pp. 99-100)
considered Paracleius to be a senior subjective synonym of Pelastoneurus. In
proposing the name Paraclius, Loew (1864) indicated that he was creating a new
genus that was not congeneric with Paracleius Bigot, 1859. Loew stated (1864,
pp. 99-100) that he saw ‘no inconvenience in retaining the newly coined name . . .
Paraclius, for the new genus I intend to establish and to define here’. However,
Kertész (1909, p. 230) emended the spelling of Paracleius Bigot, 1859 to Paraclius and
listed Paraclius Kertész as a senior synonym of Pelastoneurus Loew. Apparently
Kertész was not aware that his emended name was preoccupied by Paraclius Loew,
1864. This confusion has continued with several regional catalogues (namely Foote
et al., 1965; Robinson, 1970; Dyte, 1975 and Negrobov, 1991, but not Dyte & Smith,
1980) incorrectly treating Paraclius Loew, 1864 as an emendation of Paracleius Bigot,
1859. Despite this confusion Robinson (1970) correctly listed Paracleius as a senior
synonym of Pelastoneurus, although this synonymy was not listed in the other
regional catalogues mentioned, including the one by Dyte & Smith (1980).

Additional references

Kertész, C. 1909. Catalogus Dipterorum Hucusque Descriptorum, vol. 6. 362 pp. Budapest.

54 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003

Loew, H. 1864. Monographs of the Diptera of North America. Part II. Smithsonian
Miscellaneous Collections, 6(2 [= pub. 171]): 1-360.

Negroboy, O.P. 1991. Family Dolichopodidae. Pp. 11-139 in Soos, A. & Papp, L. (Eds.),
Catalogue of Palaearctic Diptera, vol. 7. Dolichopodidae—Platypezidae. 291 pp.
Akadémiai Kiad6, Budapest.

Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Nemotois violellus
Herrich-Schaeffer in Stainton, 1851 (currently Nemophora violella; Insecta,
Lepidoptera)

(Case 3188; see BZN 59: 30-33)

(1) Erik J. van Nieukerken

National Museum of Natural History, Naturalis, PO Box 9517, 2300 RA Leiden,
The Netherlands

1. I am not in agreement with the proposal put forward in this application.
Kozlov’s proposal to suppress the name Tinea cupriacella Hubner, 1819 in order to
conserve the name of Nemotois violellus Herrich-Schaeffer in Stainton, 1851 (which
he considers to be a junior synonym of T. cupriacella) centres around three problems.
These are: (i) the status of Hiibner’s name, (ii) the parthenogenetic nature of the
species currently known as Nemophora cupriacella (Htbner, 1819), and (ii) the
supposed ‘confusion’ around the name 7. cupriacella.

2. I agree with any action that will conserve the name Nemophora violella, but
strongly disagree with the proposal to suppress the well-known name Nemophora
cupriacella for the moth species that feeds on several Dipsacaceae species. The
suppression of a name in use for 180 years as a result of re-examination of a very
old plate does not follow the spirit of the Code. Thus, I would like to support
the alternative proposal, indicated by Kozlov (BZN 59: 32), which involves the
designation of a neotype for Tinea cupriacella. My argument in support of this
approach follows the three points listed above.

The status of Hiibner’s name

3. Tinea cupriacella was made available only by an illustration of the moth. Type
material is not known to exist and Hubner provided no description of the species.
The moth shown on the colour plate is clearly an adelid moth, and resembles species
of the genus Nemophora. The long antennae indicate that it is a male, and its
identification by Kozlov as the species currently called Nemophora violella could be
correct. However, the figure could also represent one of a number of related species,
including the (unknown) male of N. cupriacella of present authors. All later authors
based the identity of N. cupriacella on the works of Herrich-Schaeffer (1854, p. 96)
and Zeller (1853, p. 57), who described and distinguished both N. cupriacella and
N. violella (see below).

The parthenogenetic nature of the species currently known as Nemophora cupriacella
(Hiibner, 1819)

4. The parthenogenetic nature of N. cupriacella was not recognized before 1978
(Suomalainen, 1978). However, many earlier authors mentioned that they only knew

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 55

females of this species (e.g. Zeller, 1853 (p. 57); Herrich-Schaeffer, 1854 (p. 97); Frey,
1856 (p. 83); Stainton, 1859 (p. 301); Wocke 1874 (p. 47); Sorhagen, 1886 (p. 155);
Disque, 1901 (p. 201) and Razowski, 1978 (p. 83)).

5. Parthenogenesis is a relatively rare phenomenon in the Lepidoptera and best
known in the family psycHIDAE (see Vandel, 1931; Robinson, 1971; Suomalainen,
Lokki & Saura, 1979). At the moment there is no doubt that N. cupriacella is
parthenogenetic in north and northwest Europe (see Suomalainen, 1978; K. Bland
(pers. comm.); van Nieukerken, 1993). However, no recent data are available for
southern parts of Europe.

6. In many cases Lepidopteran parthenogenesis is not a universal condition (see
Vandel, 1931; Robinson, 1971); bisexual populations may occur in parts of the
distribution area. Even in fully parthenogenetic populations, males occur now and
then as the result of a ‘genetic defect’. Such males have been reported in the otherwise
parthenogenetic nepticulid Ectoedemia argyropeza (Zeller, 1839) (see Bond & van
Nieukerken, 1987) and Stigmella microtheriella (Stainton, 1854) (see LasStuvka &
Lastuvka, 1997 (p. 39); L. Aarvik, pers. comm.) and in the psychid Luffia ferchaultella
(Stephens, 1828) (see Henderickx, 1982). Therefore, it is possible that male specimens
of N. cupriacella do occur from time to time.

7. So even if N. cupriacella is a parthenogenetic species, it is still possible that
Hubner had a male specimen either from an as yet unknown bisexual population or
an incidental male from a parthenogenetic population.

The supposed ‘confusion’ around the name 7. cupriacella

8. Kozlov’s case is built on the alleged confusion around the name T. cupriacella.
Actually, the usage of both the name N. cupriacella and the name N. violella has been
relatively consistent since 1853.

9. Many authors could not understand why they were unable to find male N.
cupriacella (e.g. Zeller, 1853 (p. 57); Herrich-Schaeffer, 1854 (p. 97)). It is striking that
both these authors got their males from southern Europe. This could be an indication
that bisexual populations existed there. On the other hand, they may have mis-
identified their specimens. Later authors (e.g. Heath & Pelham-Clinton, 1976;
Kuppers, 1980) mismatched several taxa in search for males of N. cupriacella and
provided incorrect and confusing descriptions and illustrations of male specimens
and their genitalia. However, this was not the case for the females.

10. According to Kozlov, the only feature that has been used consistently to
distinguish between N. cupriacella and N. violella is their respective larval foodplants.
However, there are two other characters that immediately separate the females of
both species. These are the colour of the hairs on the labial palps and the length of
the palps themselves. N. cupriacella has predominantly yellow hairs on longer palps
(Figure 1). N. violella has completely black hairs on shorter palps (Figure 2). More
interesting is that both Zeller (1853, pp. 58, 62) and Herrich-Schaeffer (1854, p. 97)
use these characters in their descriptions, as do some of the later authors (e.g.
Heinemann, 1870 (pp. 83-84); Snellen, 1882 (p. 498), Lycklama a Nijeholt, 1929
(p. 49)). To cite the last author (translated from Dutch): ‘Snellen [in a paper in 1889]
... considered both to be one species, but he did mention the clear difference in size
and hairs of the palps given by Zeller’. Most other authors overlooked this character,

56 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003

although Kiippers (1980, p. 330) mentioned it for N. cupriacella, but not for
N. violella.

11. Kozlov’s remark that all authors relied on earlier sources for information
relating to the larval foodplants of these species is overstated. Several authors did
rear the species and could separate them successfully (e.g. Disqué, 1901 (p. 206);
Stange in Disqué, 1901 (p. 206); Lycklama a Nijeholt, 1929 (p. 49); Lycklama a
Nijeholt, 1932 (p. x)). The records of Sedum as hostplant for N. cupriacella go back
to the record by Schmid (cited in Réssler, 1867) who found overwintering larvae on
Sedum. However, Sedum is not the primary hostplant of N. cupriacella; its early
stages are confined to flowers of Dipsacaceae. The early stages of N. violella are
confined to flowers of Gentiana and Gentianella. In later larval instars they live on the
soil, feeding on the basal leaves of their host plants and probably also on the leaves
of other plants. Most current fieldworkers can easily recognise both species by their
associated hostplants.

12. In conclusion, the identity of the figure labelled as Tinea cupriacella by Hiibner
cannot be unambiguously identified, but two taxonomic species known as N.
cupriacella and N. violella have been recognised during the last 150 years (at least in
female specimens) on the basis of Herrich-Schaeffer’s and Zeller’s descriptions. Many
authors have misidentified their material, particularly male specimens, because the
species are similar and males probably absent in Nemophora cupriacella. However,
nomenclatural changes should not be used to cover up misidentifications and poor
taxonomy. The names N. cupriacella and N. violella are well known amongst
northern European lepidopterists and have in recent years also been used in nature
conservancy reports (van Nieukerken, 1993). Change of one of these names into a
completely new one as proposed by Kozlov should not be endorsed as it will upset
nomenclatural stability.

13. I therefore propose that the existing usage of the names N. cupriacella and N.
violella be maintained by designating a neotype for T. cupriacella. The most suitable
specimen for the neotype is deposited in The Natural History Museum, London. The
specimen has the following data labels: 2, POLAND: Glogow; “Scab. succisa
Torfwiesen | Glogau | Zeller 1/ [18]53’; ‘Stainton Coll. |Brit. Mus.|1893—134.

14. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to use its plenary power to set aside all previous type fixations for the nominal
species Tinea cupriacella Hubner, 1819 and to designate the specimen proposed
in para. 13 above as neotype;

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) cupriacella Hiibner, 1819, as published in the binomen Tinea cupriacella

and as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above;
(b) violellus Herrich-Schaffer in Stainton, 1851, as published in the binomen
Nemotois violellus.

Acknowledgements

A draft of this paper has been circulated for comments amongst a number of
European lepidopterists. I am grateful for advice or comments from Jaroslaw
Buszko, Ole Karsholt, Mikhail Kozlov, Zdenek LaStuvka, Niels Peder Kristensen,
Gaden Robinson, Klaus Sattler, Jan van Tol and Kevin Tuck.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 ; 57
Additional references

Bond, K.G.M. & Nieukerken, E.J. yan. 1987. Discovery of male Ectoedemia argyropeza (Zeller)
(Lepidoptera: Nepticulidae) in south-west Ireland. Entomologist’s Gazette, 38: 191-195.

Heinemann, H. von. 1870. Die Schmetterlinge Deutschlands und der Schweiz. Abtheilung
2 (Kleinschmetterlinge) Band 2. (Die Motten und Federmotten). Heft 1. 388 pp.
Braunschweig [year cited incorrectly as 1877 in BZN 59: 32].

Henderickx, H. 1982. Découverte d’une chrysalide male de Luffia au sein d’une population de
Vespéce parthénogénetique Luffia ferchaultella Stephens (Lep., Psychidae). A/exanor, 12:
195-198.

LaStuvka, A. & LaStuvka, Z. 1997. Nepticulidae Mitteleuropas. Ein illustrierter Begleiter
(Lepidoptera). 229 pp. Brno.

Lycklama a Nijeholt, H.J. 1929. Aantekeningen omtrent Nederlandsche Microlepidoptera
[Notes on Dutch Microlepidoptera]. Tijdschrift voor Entomologie, 72: 42-58. [In Dutch].

Lycklama a Nijeholt, H.J. 1932. [no title]. Tijdschrift voor Entomologie, 75: ix-xii. [In Dutch].

Nieukerken, E.J. yan. 1993. De langsprietmotjes van blauwe knoop en klokjesgentiaan [Fairy
moths from Devil’s bit scabious and Marsh gentian.]. Pp. 88-96, in Swaay, C.A.M. van
& Halder, I. van (Eds.), Jaarboek Natuur, PGO — flora en fauna. Wageningen. [In Dutch].

Razowski, J. 1978. Motyle (Lepidoptera) Polski. Czesc 3. Heteroneura, Adeloidea
[Lepidoptera of Poland, part 3]. Monografie Fauny Polski, 8: \-137. [In Polish].

Robinson, R. 1971. Lepidoptera genetics. 687 pp. Oxford.

Rossler, A. 1867. Verzeichnis der Schmetterlinge des Herzogthums Nassau, mit besonderer
Berticksichtigung der biologischen Verhaltnisse und der Entwicklungsgeschichte.
Jahrbuch des Nassauischen Vereins ftir Naturkunde, 19, 20: 99-442 (reprint paginated
1-342).

Stainton, H.T. 1859. Manual of British butterflies and moths. xi, 480 pp. London.

Suomalainen, E., Lokki, J. & Saura, A. 1979. Evolution in parthenogenetic populations. Aquilo
Ser. Zoologica, 20: 83-91.

Vandel, A. 1931. La Parthénogenése. xix, 412 pp. Paris

Figure 1. Figure 2.
Figure 1. Nemophora cupriacella (Hiibner), female palps seen from lateral view: many yellow hairs and
some black ones, relatively long palps (compared with eye width). Netherlands, Denekamp, 20.vii.1992.,
netted around Succisa pratensis, E.J. van Nieukerken.

Figure 2. Nemophora violella (Herrich-Schaeffer), female palps seen from lateral view: only some black
hairs, shorter palps (compared with eye width). Netherlands, Staverden, 20.vii.1992, netted on wet
heathland near Gentiana pneumonanthe, E.J. van Nieukerken.

58 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003

(2) Zdenek Lastuvka

Department of Zoology and Agriculture, Mendel University of Agriculture and
Forestry, Brno, Czech Republic

I am not in agreement with the proposal presented in Case 3188. Instead, I favour
conservation of the name N. cupriacella (Hubner, 1819) for the species that feeds on
Scabiosa and Succissa by designation of a neotype as suggested by Kozlev (BZN 59:
32) and outlined in detail by van Nieukerken in comment (1) above. The spirit of the
current Code does not support the suppression of a well understood name just
because it may now be applied to a taxon other than that to which it was originally
applied. Suppression of the name N. cupriacella would not be in the best interests of
nomenclatural stability.

Comment on the proposed conservation of usage of the names Phymaturus
Gravenhorst, 1837 and Lacerta palluma Molina, 1782 (currently Phymaturus
palluma; Reptilia, Sauria) by designation of a neotype for Lacerta palluma Molina,
1782

(Case 3225; see BZN 60: 38-41)

Robert E. Espinoza

Department of Biology, California State University, Northridge, California
91330-8303, U.S.A. :

Asa physical ecologist who studies Phymaturus lizards, I give my full support to this
application. The unique biology of the lizards belonging to the genus Phymaturus
Gravenhorst, 1837 and, in particular, the species currently known as Phymaturus
palluma (Molina, 1782) is of great interest to physiologists, ecologists and behaviorists
for a number of reasons. First, this species is herbivorous. As such, it occupies a
trophic niche that 1s rarely exploited by modern reptiles and is virtually unknown
among the smaller species (i.e. those with a body mass less than 40 g) such as
Phymaturus. Second, the species currently known as Phymaturus palluma 1s vivi-
parous (gives birth to live young) with an extraordinarily large offspring clutch mass
relative to the body mass of the female. Third, females of this species appear to form
close and lasting post-birth associations with their offspring (i.e. parental care), which
is also quite rare among squamate reptiles. Finally, Phymaturus palluma lives in an
extreme biotope at high elevations (to 4000 m) and under very dry conditions (less
than 200 mm precipitation per year). This species has already been a focal point of
numerous ecophysiological studies and will be the subject of many other research
projects, allowing the investigation of phenomena not previously studied in squamate
reptiles.

For these reasons it is imperative that the current usage of these names is conserved
and stability established. The confusion of names in the literature caused by the
actions by Cei, Lescure and Veloso et al. in various papers has already caused
problems in communication and information retrieval. I urge the Commission to rule
in favour of conserving the current usage of the names Phymaturus Gravenhorst,
1837 and Phymaturus palluma (Molina, 1782) by designation of a neotype for Lacerta
palluma Molina, 1782.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 59

OPINION 2016 (Case 2888)

Valdivianemertes Stiasny-Wijnhoff, 1923 (Nemertea): not conserved
Abstract. The Commission has ruled that priority should be maintained for the
nemertean generic name Akrostomum Grube, 1840. A proposal had been made to

conserve the junior objective synonym Valdivianemertes Stiasny-Wiynhoff, 1923.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Nemertea; CRATENEMERTIDAE; Akrostomum;
Valdivianemertes; Akrostomum stannii.

Ruling
(1) Proposals put forward for the conservation of the generic name
Valdivianemertes Stiasny-Wijnhoff, 1923 were not approved.
(2) The name Akrostomum Grube, 1840 (gender: neuter), type species by
monotypy Akrostomum stannii Grube, 1840, is hereby placed on the Official
List of Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name stannii Grube, 1840, as published in the binomen Akrostomum
stannii (specific name of the type species of Akrostomum Grube, 1840), is
hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and

Invalid Generic Names in Zoology:

(a) Valdivianemertes Stiasny-Wijnhoff, 1923 (a junior objective synonym of
Akrostomum Grube, 1840);

(b) Acrostomum Orsted, 1843 (an incorrect subsequent spelling of Akrostomum
Grube, 1840).

(4

wa

History of Case 2888

An application for the conservation of the generic name Valdivianemertes
Stiasny-Wijnhoff, 1923, which was threatened by the senior objective synonym
Akrostomum Grube, 1840, was received from Frank B. Crandall (Turkey Run
Research Institute, McLean, Virginia, U.S.A.) on 21 April 1993. After corres-
pondence the case was published in BZN 51: 298-301 (December 1994). Notice
of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments on this case were
received.

The application was sent to the Commission for voting on 1 December 1995. The
case received a majority of the votes cast but failed to reach the required two-thirds
majority (17 votes in favour and 9 against). Voting against the application on
1 December 1995 Bouchet commented: ‘the application cites five authors who have
used Valdivianemertes since 1923; the present voting paper adds two. This points to
a very limited usage of that name. Priority should apply’. As a result, the application
was submitted for a second vote on 1 September 2002 under Bylaw 35.

No other comments were received in relation to this case before the second vote,
even though the Commission Secretariat invited the author to provide additional
support for the application.

60 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003

Decision of the Commission

On | September 2002 the members of the Commission were invited to revote on the
proposals published in BZN 51: 299.

At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2002 the votes were as follows: 14
Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, 10 Commissioners voted AGAINST, no
votes were received from BO6hme, Dupuis and Martins de Souza, Ng was on leave of
absence.

Voting against Brothers commented: “The fact that no further comments have been
received reinforces the impression that strict adherence to priority would not cause
major confusion 1n this case’.

Original references

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion:

Acrostomum Orsted, 1843, Naturhistorisk Tidsskrift (Udgivet af H. Kroyer) Rek. 1,
1837-1843, Bd. 4, p. 95. :

Akrostomum Grube, 1840, Actinien, Echinodermen und Wiirmer des Adriatischen- und
Mittelmeers, p. 57.

stannii, Akrostomum, Grube, 1840, Actinien, Echinodermen und Wiirmer des Adriatischen- und
Mittelmeers, p. 57.

Valdivianemertes Stiasny-Wijnhoff, 1923, Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science, 67: 643.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 61

OPINION 2017 (Case 2983)

Achatinellastrum Pfeiffer, 1854 and ACHATINELLIDAE Gulick, 1873
(Mollusca, Gastropoda): conserved

Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the generic name Achatinellastrum Pfeiffer,
1854 for a terrestrial snail from Oahu (one of the Hawaiian islands) and the
family-group name ACHATINELLIDAE Gulick, 1873 are conserved. These names were
threatened by the unused senior subjective synonyms Helicteres Beck, 1837 and
HELICTERINAE Pease, 1870, which have been suppressed except for homonymy.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Gastropoda; ACHATINELLIDAE; Achatinella;
Achatinellastrum; tree snails; Hawaii.

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary power the following names are suppressed for the
purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of
Homonymy:

(a) Helicteres Beck, 1837;
(b) Helicter Pease, 1862.

(2) The name Achatinellastrum Pfeiffer, 1854 (gender: neuter), type species by
subsequent designation by Pilsbry & Cooke (1914) Achatinella producta Reeve,
1850, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name producta Reeve, 1850, as published in the binomen Achatinella
producta (specific name of the type species of Achatinellastrum Pfeiffer, 1854),
is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

(4) The name ACHATINELLIDAE Gulick, 1873 (type genus Achatinella Swainson,
1828) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology.

(5) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and

Invalid Generic Names in Zoology:

(a) Helicteres Beck, 1837, as suppressed in (1)(a) above;

(b) Helicter Pease, 1862, as suppressed in (1)(b) above.

The name HELICTERINAE Pease, 1870 is hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology (invalid because the
name of the type genus has been suppressed).

(6

ma

History of Case

An application for the conservation the generic name Achatinellastrum Pfeiffer,
1854 together with the family name ACHATINELLIDAE Gulick, 1873 was received from
Robert H. Cowie (Center for Conservation Research and Training, University of
Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.A.) and Neal L. Evenhuis (Bishop Museum, Honolulu,
Hawaii, U.S.A.) on 3 May 1995. After correspondence the case was published in
BZN 58: 188-192 (September 2001). The title, abstract and keywords of the case
were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were
received.

62 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003

Decision of the Commission

On | September 2002 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 58: 190-191.

At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2002 the votes were as follows:
22 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, 2 Commissioners voted AGAINST,
Evenhuis abstained, no votes were received from Bohme and Dupuis, Ng was on
leave of absence.

Voting against, Alonso-Zarazaga commented that ‘to achieve the goals intended
by the proposal, there is no need to fully suppress these names as they could be
needed when the phylogeny of these taxa is better known. I would be in agreement
with a conditional suppression when these taxa are considered to be synonyms’.
Likewise, Cogger commented: ‘In those groups whose taxonomy remains relatively
fluid, experience indicates that subjective synonymy of two taxa is often removed
with improved methods of taxonomic resolution. For this reason I oppose this
specific case and generally oppose the suppression of senior subjective synonyms
when precedence achieves the desired nomenclatural outcome of stability and
universality while leaving the senior names available’.

Original references

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and Official
Indexes by the ruling given in the present Opinion:

Achatinellastrum Pfeiffer, 1854, Malakozoologische Blatter, 1: 133.

ACHATINELLIDAE Gulick, 1873, Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1873: 89.

Helicter Pease, 1862, Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1862: 6.

Helicteres Beck, 1837, Index Molluscorum .. ., part 1, p. 51.

HELICTERINAE Pease, 1870, Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1869: 645.

producta, Achatinella, Reeve, 1850, Achatinella. Monograph of the genus. Conchologia Iconica,
vol. 6, pl. 2, sp. 13.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 63

OPINION 2018 (Case 3192)

BULIMINIDAE Kobelt, 1880 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): spelling emended to
BULIMINUSIDAE, SO removing the homonymy with BULIMINIDAE Jones,
1875 (Rhizopoda, Foraminifera); and ENIDAE Woodward, 1903 (1880)
(Gastropoda): given precedence over BULIMINUSIDAE Kobelt, 1880

Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the homonymy between BULIMINIDAE Jones,
1875 (Foraminifera) and BULIMINIDAE Kobelt, 1880 (Gastropoda) is eliminated by
emending the spelling of Kobelt’s name to BULIMINUSIDAE. Both Jones’s and Kobelt’s
names BULIMINIDAE are in use and refer, respectively, to a cosmopolitan foraminiferan
family from the Cretaceous to Recent and to a group of terrestrial snails with
Palaearctic and Oriental taxa.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Foraminifera; Gastropoda; Bulimina;
Buliminus; Ena; BULIMINIDAE; BULIMINUSIDAE; ENIDAE.

Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that:

(a) for the purposes of Article 29 of the Code the stem of the generic name
Buliminus Beck, 1837 (Gastropoda) 1s BULIMINUS-;

(b) the family-group name ENIDAE Woodward, 1903 (1880) and other family-
group names based on Ena Turton, 1831 are to be given precedence over
BULIMINUSIDAE Kobelt, 1880 and other family-group names based on
Buliminus Beck, 1837 whenever their type genera are placed in the same
family-group taxon (Gastropoda).

(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology:

(a) Bulimina d’Orbigny, 1826 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent
designation by Cushman (1911) Bulimina marginata dOrbigny, 1826
(Foraminifera);

(b) Buliminus Beck, 1837 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy of
the replaced nominal genus Bulimina Ehrenberg, 1831, Bulimus labrosus
Olivier, 1804 (Gastropoda).

The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names

in Zoology:

(a) marginata dOrbigny, 1826, as published in the binomen Bulimina
marginata (specific name of the type species of Bulimina d’Orbigny, 1826)
(Foraminifera);

(b) Jabrosus Olivier, 1804, as published in the binomen Bulimus labrosus
(specific name of the type species of Buliminus Beck, 1837) (Gastropoda).

The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group

Names in Zoology:

(a) BULIMINIDAE Jones in Griffith & Henfrey, 1875, type genus Bulimina
d’Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminifera);

(3

m

as
©

64 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003

(b) ENIDAE Woodward, 1903 (1880) (type genus Ena Turton, 1831) with the
endorsement that it and other family-group names based on Ena are to be
given precedence Over BULIMINUSIDAE Kobelt, 1880 (type genus Buliminus
Beck, 1837) and other family-group names based on Buliminus whenever

.their type genera are placed in the same family-group taxon (Gastropoda);

BULIMINUSIDAE Kobelt, 1880 (spelling emended by the ruling in (1)(a)
above) (type genus Buliminus Beck, 1837) with the endorsement that it and
other family-group names based on Buliminus are not to be given priority
over ENIDAE Woodward, 1903 (1880) (type genus Ena Turton, 1831) and
other family-group names based on Ena whenever their type genera are
placed in the same family-group taxon (Gastropoda).

(5) The name Bulimina Ehrenberg, 1831: (a junior homonym of Bulimina
d’Orbigny, 1826) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
Generic Names in Zoology (Gastropoda).

(6) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology:

(a) BULIMINIDAE Pfeiffer, 1879 (based on the junior generic homonym Bulimina
Ehrenberg, 1831 and a junior homonym of BULIMINIDAE Jones in Griffith &
Henfrey, 1875) (Gastropoda);

(b) BULIMINIDAE Kobelt, 1880 (spelling emended to BULIMINUSIDAE in (1)(a)
above) (Gastropoda);

(C) BULIMINUINAE Schileyko, 1998 (an unjustified emendation and junior
objective synonym of BULIMINUSIDAE Kobelt, 1880) (Gastropoda).

a

(c

History of Case 3192

An application to remove the homonymy of the family-group name BULIMINIDAE
Kobelt, 1880 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) with BULIMINIDAE Jones in Griffith & Henfrey,
1875 (Rhizopoda, Foraminifera) by emending the spelling of BULIMINIDAE Kobelt,
1880 to BULIMINUSIDAE and for the family-group name ENIDAE Woodward, 1903
(1880) (Gastropoda) to be given precedence over BULIMINUSIDAE Kobelt, 1880
was received from Bernhard Hausdorf (Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches
Museum der Universitit Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany) on 5 February 2001. After
correspondence the case was published in BZN 58: 182-187 (September 2001). The
title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website.

A comment from Kadolsky concerning the stem of BULIMINIDAE Kobelt, 1880 was
included on the voting paper.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 September 2002 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 58: 184-185.

At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2002 the votes were as follows:
25 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, no Commissioners voted AGAINST,
no votes were received from B6hme and Dupuis, Ng was on leave of absence.

Original references

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists ane Official
Indexes by the ruling given in the present Opinion:

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 65

Bulimina @ Orbigny, 1826, Annales des Sciences Naturelles, 7: 269.

Bulimina Ehrenberg, 1831, Symbolae physicae seu icones et descriptiones animalium
evertebratorum sepositis insectis, quae ex itineribus per Africam, Borealem et Asiam
Occidentalem . . ., 1. Pars zoologica. Animalia Evertebrata. Animalia Mollusca, p. [84].

BULIMINIDAE Jones in Griffith & Henfrey, 1875, The micrographic dictionary, Ed. 3, vol. 1,
p. 320.

BULIMINIDAE Kobelt, 1880, /lustriertes Conchylienbuch, vol. 2, p. 272.

BULIMINUINAE Schileyko, 1998, Treatise on Recent terrestrial pulmonate molluscs. Part 2.
Ruthenica, supplement 2: 183.

Buliminus Beck, 1837, Index Molluscorum praesentis aevi musei principis augustissimi Christiani
Frederici, p. 68.

BULIMINUSIDAE Kobelt, 1880, I/lustriertes Conchylienbuch, vol. 2, p. 272.

ENIDAE Woodward, 1903 (1880), Proceedings of the Malacological Society of London, 5(5): 310.

labrosus, Bulimus, Olivier, 1804, Voyage dans l’Empire Othoman, I’Egypte et la Perse, fait par
ordre du Gouvernement, pendant les six premiéres années de la République, vol. 4, livraison
2, p. 30.

marginata, Bulimina, @ Orbigny, 1826, Annales des Sciences Naturelles, 7: 269.

66 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003

OPINION 2019 (Case 2899)

Dodecaceria concharum Orsted, 1843 and Heterocirrus fimbriatus
Verrill, 1879 (currently D. fimbriata) (Annelida, Polychaeta):
conservation of usage of the names by the designation of a neotype for
D. concharum not approved

Abstract. The Commission has ruled not to approve proposals for the conservation
of usage of the names of two cirratulid polychaetes, Dodecaceria concharum Orsted,
1843 and Heterocirrus fimbriatus Verrill, 1879, by the designation of a neotype for
D. concharum. No names have been placed on Official Lists or Indexes.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Polychaeta; cirratulid polychaetes;
Dodecaceria; Dodecaceria concharum; Heterocirrus fimbriatus.

Ruling
(1) Proposals put forward for the conservation of the usage of the specific names
of Dodecaceria concharum Orsted, 1843 and Heterocirrus fimbriatus Verrill,
1879 by the designation of a neotype for D. concharum were not approved.

History of Case 2899

An application for the conservation of the specific names of Dodecaceria
concharum Orsted, 1843 and Heterocirrus fimbriatus Verrill, 1879 by the designation
of a neotype for D. concharum was received from P.H. Gibson (nstitute of Cell,
Animal and Population Biology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, U.K.) and David
Heppell (National Museums of Scotland, Edinburgh, U.K.) on 22 June 1993. After
correspondence the case was published in BZN 52: 27-33 (March 1995). Notice of the
case was sent to appropriate journals.

A comment opposing the application from F. Pleijel (Swedish Museum of Natural
History, Stockholm, Sweden and Tjdrné Marine Biological Laboratory, Strémstad,
Sweden) and A.S.Y. Mackie (National Museum of Wales, Cardiff, Wales, U.K.) was
published in BZN 52: 261-262. Heppell & Gibson replied (BZN 52: 329-331) in
defence of their proposals.

A further comment opposing the application was received from T. Miura
(Kagoshima University, Kagoshima, Japan) and A.J. Muir (The Natural History
Museum, London, U.K.) representing the Nomenclatural Sub-Committee of the
International Polychaete Association and was published in BZN 53: 46.

A long and detailed submission was received on 15 December 1995 from M.E.
Petersen (Zoological Museum, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen O, Denmark),
J.D. George (The Natural History Museum, London, U.K.), J.A. Blake (ENSR
Consulting and Engineering Inc., Woods Hole, MA, U.S.A.), K. Fauchald (National
Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) and
K.W. Ockelmann (Marine Biological Laboratory, University of Copenhagen,
Helsingor, Denmark). This was primarily a taxonomic paper, but it opposed Gibson
& Heppell’s requests (1), (3) and (4) to the Commission and made counter-proposals

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 67

for the designation of neotypes. Dr Petersen et al. were encouraged to publish the
taxonomic content of this submission elsewhere before bringing the nomenclatural
aspects to the Commission. However, the paper was not published and their
counter-proposals were not put to the Commission for a vote.

No further comments on this case were received.

Decision of the Commission

On | September 2002 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 52: 31-32.

At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2002 the votes were as follows:
1 Commissioner voted FOR the proposals, 23 Commissioners voted AGAINST, no
votes were received from B6hme, Dupuis and Martins de Souza, Ng was on leave of
absence.

No names are placed on Official Lists or Indexes and the issue is left open for
subsequent workers to follow the precepts of the Code or to make new proposals to
the Commission.

68 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003

OPINION 2020 (Case 3078)

Diastylis Say, 1818 (Crustacea, Cumacea): Cuma rathkii Kroyer, 1841
designated as type species

Abstract. The Commission has designated Cuma rathkii Kroyer, 1841 as the type
species of the cumacean genus Diastylis Say, 1818, replacing D. arenarius Say, 1818,
the original type species. The original material of D. arenarius is lost and the taxon
is not identifiable from its description.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Crustacea; Cumacea; DIASTYLIDAE; Diastylis;
Diastylis rathkii.

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary power all previous fixations of type species for the nominal
genus Diastylis Say, 1818 are hereby set aside and Cuma rathkii Kroyer, 1841
is designated as the type species.

(2) The name Diastylis Say, 1818 (gender: feminine), type species by designation in
(1) above Cuma rathkii Kroyer, 1841, is hereby placed on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name rathkii Kroyer, 1841, as published in the binomen Cuma rathkii
(specific name of the type species of Diastylis Say, 1818) and defined by
the lectotype in the Zoological Museum of the University of Copenhagen
ZMUC-CRU-7936, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology.

History of Case 3078

An application to designate Cwma rathkii Kroyer, 1841 as the type species of
the genus Diastylis Say, 1818 was received from Sarah Gerken (Darling Marine
Center, University of Maine, Walpole, Maine, U.S.A.) on 20 January 1998. After
correspondence the case was published in BZN 56: 174-176 (September 1999).

A comment in support of the application from L.B. Holthuis (Nationaal
Natuurhistorisch Museum, Leiden, The Netherlands) (BZN 57: 45-46) pointed out
that the doubtful identity of the type species of Diastylis “has been known for a long
time’ and that ‘the most suitable type species would be Cuma rathkii Kroyer, 1841’.
Holthuis also pointed out that, although para. 1 of the application stated that
D. arenarius is the type species by monotypy, Say (1818, pp. 315-316) indicated that
three nominal species were included in the genus. The first fixation of a type species
was by Fowler (1912, p. 534) who cited D. arenarius in the belief that the genus was
originally monotypic. As the type material consists of several specimens from the two
localities (mentioned in para. 5) Holthuis considered that it would be advisable to
select a lectotype for C. rathkii in case the existing syntypes are found to represent
more than one taxon. A lectotype for the nominal species C. rathkii Kroyer, 1841
(specimen ZMUC-CRU-7936 in Copenhagen) was designated by Gerken in BZN 58:
305 in reply to the comment by L.B. Holthuis.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 69

Decision of the Commission

On 1 September 2002 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 56: 175.

At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2002 the votes were as follows:
25 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, no Commissioners voted AGAINST,
no votes were received from Bohme and Dupuis, Ng was on leave of absence.

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:

Diastylis Say, 1818, Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 1(11): 313.
rathkii, Cuma, Kroyer, 1841, Naturhistorisk Tidsskrift, 3(6): 513.

70

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003

OPINION 2021 (Case 3048)

NYMPHULINAE Duponchel, 1845 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): not given
precedence over ACENTROPINAE Stephens, 1835

Abstract. The Commission has ruled that priority should be maintained for the
crambid moth subfamily name ACENTROPINAE Stephens, 1835. A proposal had
been made to give precedence to the subjective synonym NYMPHULINAE Duponchel,

1845.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Lepidoptera; ACENTROPINAE; NYMPHULINAE;
Acentropus; Nymphula; Acentropus garnonsit; Phalaena stagnata; aquatic caterpillars.

Ruling
(1) The family-group name NyMPHULINAE Duponchel, 1845 and other family-

wa

ma

group names based on Nymphula Schrank, 1802 are not to be given priority

Over ACENTROPINAE Stephens, 1835 and other family-group names based on

Acentropus Curtis, 1834 whenever they are considered to be synonyms. The

Principle of Priority is to be upheld and ACENTROPINAE Stephens, 1835 has

priority over NYMPHULINAE Duponchel, 1845 whenever they are considered to

be synonyms.

The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group

Names in Zoology:

(a) ACENTROPINAE Stephens, 1835, with the endorsement that it has priority
over NYMPHULINAE Duponchel, 1845 (in accordance with the Principle of
Priority) whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms;

(b) NYMPHULINAE Duponchel, 1845, with the endorsement that it is not to be
given precedence over ACENTROPINAE Stephens, 1835 whenever the two
names are considered to be synonyms.

The name Acentropus Curtis, 1834 (gender: masculine) type species by original

designation Acentropus garnonsii Curtis, 1834 (generic name of the type genus

of ACENTROPINAE Stephens, 1835) is hereby placed on the Official List of

Generic Names in Zoology.

The name garnonsii Curtis, 1834, as published in the binomen Acentropus

garnonsii (specific name of the type species of Acentropus Curtis, 1834), is

hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

The name Nymphula Schrank, 1802 already appears on the Official List of

Generic Names in Zoology (see Opinion 1406), but the entry is herewith

emended to record that Nymphula Schrank, 1802 is the generic name of the

type genus of NYMPHULINAE Duponchel, 1845.

The name stagnata Donovan, 1806, as published in the binomen Phalaena

stagnata (specific name of the type species of Nymphula Schrank, 1802),

already appears on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology (see Opinion

1406) and no emendment to the List is necessary.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 71

History of Case 3048

An application for conservation of the usage of the name NYMPHULINAE Duponchel,
1845 by giving it precedence over the name ACENTROPINAE Stephens, 1835 whenever
the two names are regarded as synonyms was received from M. Alma Solis
(Systematic Entomology Laboratory, Agriculture Research Service, USDA, National
Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) on 9 June 1997. After
correspondence the case was published in BZN 56: 31-33 (March 1999). Notice of the
case was sent to appropriate journals.

Comments opposing the application were published in BZN 57: 46-48 (March
2000) and BZN 59: 131—132. Comments in support of the application were published
in BZN 58: 305-306, BZN 59: 38-40 and BZN 59: 132.

The application was sent to the Commission for voting on | March 2001. The case
received a majority of the votes cast but failed to reach the required two-thirds
majority (11 votes FOR and 9 AGAINST; one Commissioner abstained).

On 1| September 2002 the application was submitted for a second vote under Bylaw
35. An additional comment received from Ernst Arenberger (Bérnergasse, Wien,
Austria) was added to the voting paper: “The name ACENTROPINAE has been selected
by Speidel (1981, 1984) as the oldest name for a complex of genera. Meanwhile, the
name was used in 1994 by Arenberger. This name should be maintained for the sake
of stability’.

Additional reference

Arenberger, A. 1994. Zusammenfassende Darstellung der Mikrolepidopterenfauna Zyperns.
Annales Musei Goulandris, 9: 253-336.

Decision of the Commission

On | September 2002 the members of the Commission were invited to revote on the
proposals published in BZN 56: 32.

At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2002 the votes were as follows: 15
Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, 9 Commissioners voted AGAINST,
Martins de Souza abstained, no votes were received from B6hme and Dupuis, Ng
was on leave of absence.

Voting against, Brothers commented: “This proposal does not concern rejection of
the attempted resurrection of a forgotten name, but is an attempt to subvert a major
principle of the Code as applied in a relatively recent case of synonymy. To approve
it would damage the foundations of the Code’.

Original references

The following are the original references to names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given
in the present Opinion:

ACENTROPINAE Stephens, 1835, J/lustrations of British entomology, Mandibulata, p. 148.
NYMPHULINAE Duponchel, 1845, Catalogue méthodique des Lépidoptéres d'Europe, p. 201.
Acentropus Curtis, 1834, British Entomology, 11: folio 497.

garnonsti, Acentropus, Curtis, 1834, British Entomology, 11: folio 497.

72 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003

OPINION 2022 (Case 3197)

Glassia Davidson, 1881 (Brachiopoda): G. elongata Davidson, 1881
designated as the type species

Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the current usage of Glassia Davidson, 1881
and Lissatrypa Twenhofel, 1914 for two important genera of smooth-shelled Silurian
brachiopods with radically different internal structure is conserved. Davidson
designated Atrypa obovata Sowerby, 1839 as the type species of Glassia, but this
species is now known from its internal structure to be a species of the genus
Lissatrypa (type species L. atheroidea Twenhofel, 1914). To avoid synonymy between
Glassia and Lissatrypa, the species Glassia elongata Davidson, 1881 has been
designated as type species of Glassia.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Brachiopoda; GLASSIIDAE; LISSATRYPIDAE;
Glassia; Lissatrypa; Glassia elongata; Lissatrypa atheroidea; Silurian.

Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power.all previous fixations of type species for the nominal

genus Glassia Davidson, 1881 are hereby set aside and Glassia elongata

Davidson, 1881 is designated as the type species.

The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names

in Zoology:

(a) Glassia Davidson, 1881 (gender: feminine), type species by designation in
(1) above Glassia elongata Davidson, 1881;

(b) Lissatrypa Twenhofel, 1914 (gender: feminine), type species by original
designation and monotypy Lissatrypa atheroidea Twenhofel, 1914.

The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names

in Zoology: :

(a) elongata Davidson, 1881, as published in the binomen Glassia elongata
(specific name of the type species of Glassia Davidson, 1881);

(b) atheroidea Twenhofel, 1914, as published in the binomen Lissatrypa
atheroidea (specific name of the type species of Lissatrypa Twenhofel,
1914).

(2

wa

—~
ies)
~—

History of Case 3197

An application to conserve the current usage of the generic names Glassia
Davidson, 1881 and Lissatrypa Twenhofel, 1914 for two important genera of
smooth-shelled Silurian brachiopods by the designation of Glassia elongata
Davidson, 1881 as type species of Glassia was received from Paul Copper (Laurentian
University, Sudbury, Canada) on 22 February 2001. After correspondence the case
was published in BZN 58: 288-290 (December 2001). The title, abstract and
keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on
this case were received.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 73

Decision of the Commission

On 1 September 2002 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 58: 289.

At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2002 the votes were as follows:
24 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, | Commissioner voted AGAINST, no
votes were received from Bohme and Dupuis, Ng was on leave of absence.

Original references

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:

atheroidea, Lissatrypa, Twenhofel, 1914, Museum Bulletin, Canadian Geological Survey, 3: 33.
elongata, Glassia, Davidson, 1881, Geological Magazine, (2)8(4): 148.

Glassia Davidson, 1881, Geological Magazine, (2)8(1): 11.

Lissatrypa Twenhofel, 1914, Museum Bulletin, Canadian Geological Survey, 3: 31.

74 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003

OPINION 2023 (Case 3195)

Polonograptus Tsegelnjuk, 1976 (Graptolithina): P. podoliensis Pribyl,
1983 designated as the type species

Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the current usage of the generic name
Polonograptus Tsegelnjuk, 1976 for an Upper Ludlow monograptid is conserved by
the designation of P. podoliensis Piibyl, 1983 as the type species of Polonograptus,
instead of P. butovicensis (Boucek, 1936).

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Graptolithina; Polonograptus; Polonograptus
podoliensis; Silurian.

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary power all previous fixations of type species for the nominal
genus Polonograptus Tsegelnjuk, 1976 are hereby set aside and Polonograptus
podoliensis Pribyl, 1983 is designated as the type species.

(2) The name Polonograptus Tsegelnjuk, 1976 (gender: masculine), type species by
designation in (1) above Polonograptus podoliensis Piibyl, 1983, is hereby
placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name podoliensis Pribyl, 1983, as published in the binomen Polonograptus
podoliensis (specific name of the type species of Polonograptus Tsegelnjuk,
1976), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

(4) The name Alexandrograptus Piibyl, 1981 (unavailable because disclaimed by
its author in the original publication) is hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.

History of Case 3195

An application to conserve the current usage of the generic name Polonograptus
Tsegelnjuk, 1976 for an Upper Ludlow monograptid by designating P. podoliensis
Piibyl, 1983 as the type species was received on 10 February 2001 from J.F.V.
Riva (Quebec Geoscience Centre, University of Quebec, Ste-Foy, Canada), T.N.
Koren’ (VSEGEI, Srednij Prospect 74, St Petersburg, Russia) and R.B. Rickards
(Department of Earth Sciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, U.K.). After
correspondence the case was published in BZN 58: 291-293 (December 2001). The
title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website.
No comments on this case were received.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 September 2002 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 58: 293.

At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2002 the votes were as follows: 24
Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, 1 Commissioner voted AGAINST, no
votes were received from Béhme and Dupuis, Ng was on leave of absence.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 75

Original references

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion:

Alexandrograptus Piibyl, 1981, Véstnik Ustredniho tistavu geologického, 56(6): 373.

podoliensis, Polonograptus, Piibyl, 1983, Casopis pro mineralogiia geologii, 28(2): 158.

Polonograptus Tsegelnjuk, 1976, Paleontologiya i stratigrafiya verchnego Dokembriya i
nyzhnego Paleozoya jugo-zapada vostocno-evropeyskoj platformy, pp. 124-125.

76 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003

OPINION 2024 (Case 3140)

Sceloporus occidentalis Baird & Girard, 1852 (Reptilia, Sauria):
rediscovered syntypes replaced by a neotype

Abstract. The Commission has designated a neotype for the Pacific blue-bellied lizard
Sceloporus occidentalis Baird & Girard, 1852 (family PHRYNOSOMATIDAE) from the
west coast ranges of North America. The neotype, originally designated in 1954, is a
well preserved adult specimen of known provenance and replaces two missing
syntypes which have recently been rediscovered but which are immature specimens
and do not distinguish S. occidentalis from closely related taxa.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Reptilia; Sauria; PHRYNOSOMATIDAE; Sceloporus
occidentalis; Pacific blue-bellied lizards; western North America.

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary power all previous type fixations for the nominal species
Sceloporus occidentalis Baird & Girard, 1852 are set aside and the specimen no.
MVZ 59874 in the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California,
is designated as the neotype.

(2) The name occidentalis Baird & Girard, 1852, as published in the binomen
Sceloporus occidentalis and as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above,
is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 3140

An application to replace the two rediscovered syntypes of the Pacific
blue-bellied lizard Sceloporus occidentalis Baird & Girard, 1852 (family
PHRYNOSOMATIDAE) from the west coast ranges of North America by a neotype was
received from Edwin L. Bell (Albright College, Reading, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.), and
Hobart M. Smith and David Chiszar (University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado,
U.S.A.) on 2 September 1999. After correspondence the case was published in BZN
58: 224-226 (September 2001). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were
published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were received.

Decision of the Commission

On | September 2002 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 58: 226.

At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2002 the votes were as follows:
24 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, no Commissioners voted AGAINST,
Kerzhner abstained, no votes were received from BOhme and Dupuis, Ng was on
leave of absence.

Original reference

The following is the original reference to the name placed on an Official List by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:
occidentalis, Sceloporus, Baird & Girard, 1852, Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences
of Philadelphia, 6: 175.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 77

OPINION 2025 (Case 3191)

Paretasaurus karpinskii Amalitzky, 1922 (currently Scutosaurus
Karpinski; Reptilia, Pareiasauria): specific name conserved

Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the specific name and typification of
Pareiasaurus karpinskii Amalitzky, 1922, an abundant fossil pareiasaurian reptile
from the Russian Permian, are conserved. The specific name was threatened by a
different spelling that had inadvertently been published five years earlier when the full
description was delayed by war and by Amalitzky’s death.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Reptilia; Pareiasauria; PAREIASAURIDAE;
Scutosaurus; Scutosaurus karpinskii; Permian; Russia.

Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power the specific name karpinskyi Watson, 1917, as
published in the binomen Pariasaurus [sic] karpinskyi, is hereby suppressed for
the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy.

(2) The name Scutosaurus Hartmann-Weinberg, 1930 (gender: masculine), type

species by monotypy Pareiasaurus karpinskii Amalitzky, 1922, is hereby placed
on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name karpinskiti Amalitzky, 1922, as published in the binomen
Pareiosaurus [sic] karpinskti, an mcorrect spelling of Pareiasaurus karpinskii,
(specific name of the type species of Scutosaurus Hartmann-Weinberg, 1930)
and defined by the holotype in the Palaeontological Institute of the Russian
Academy of Sciences in Moscow PIN 2005/1532, is hereby placed on the
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

The name karpinskyi Watson, 1917, as published in the binomen Pariasaurus
[sic] kKarpinskyi and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.

s

History of Case 3191

An application for the conservation of the specific name and typification of the
taxon currently known as Scutosaurus karpinskii (Amalitzky, 1922) was received
from Michael S.Y. Lee (The South Australian Museum, Adelaide, Australia) on
2 February 2001. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 58: 220-223
(September 2001). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the
Commission’s website. No comments on the case were received.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 September 2002 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 58: 221.

At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2002 the votes were as follows:
25 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, no Commissioners voted AGAINST,
no votes were received from Béhme and Dupuis, Ng was on leave of absence.

78 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003
Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official

Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion:

karpinskii, Pareiasaurus, Amalitzky, 1922, Izvestiya Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk, (6)16: 334-335.
karpinskyi, Pariasaurus [sic], Watson, 1917, Journal of Anatomy, 52 (3rd series, vol. 13): 10.
Scutosaurus Hartmann-Weinberg, 1930, Paldontologische Zeitschrift, 12(1): 59.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 79

OPINION 2026 (Case 3044)

Generic and specific names of birds (Aves) conventionally accepted as
published in the Proceedings or Transactions of the Zoological Society
of London and monographic works by John Gould and other
contemporary zoologists: suppression of prior usages not approved

Abstract. The Commission has ruled not to approve proposals for the conservation
of a large number of generic and specific names of birds in their conventionally
accepted places of publication. The problem arose from the 19th century practice of
publishing meeting reports of the Zoological Society of London in certain London
periodicals, making some names available from those periodicals rather than from
subsequent formal publications of the Zoological Society. A proposal had been made
to suppress the earlier usages of names in periodicals in order to maintain stability of
the formal source references. No names are placed on Official Lists or Indexes.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Aves; J. Gould; G.R. Gray; R. Owen;
Proceedings and Transactions of the Zoological Society of London.

Ruling
(1) Proposals put forward for the conservation of a number of generic and specific
names of birds in their conventionally accepted places of publication by the
suppression of prior usages in certain London periodicals were not approved.

History of Case 3044

An application for the conservation of a large number of generic and specific
names of birds in their conventionally accepted places of publication was submitted
on 19 February 1997 by Richard Schodde (Australian National Wildlife Collection,
CSIRO, Lyneham, Australia) and Walter J. Bock (Department of Biological Sciences,
Columbia University, New York, U.S.A.) on behalf of the Standing Committee on
Ornithological Nomenclature (SCON).

The names refer to new taxa presented at meetings of the Zoological Society of
London and traditionally accepted as available from descriptions published in the
Proceedings or Transactions of the Zoological Society. However, it is now known that
some of the names, or variants of them, had first appeared in a number of periodicals
(including The Athenaeum, The Literary Gazette and The Analyst), which carried
reports of the meetings of the Zoological Society. The objective of the application
was to maintain availability of the names in question from their conventionally
accepted places of publication by suppression of the earlier, but hitherto unknown,
usages of those names.

After correspondence the case was published in BZN 54: 172-182 (September
1997). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals.

An opposing comment from Dr Storrs L. Olson was published in BZN 55: 176-181
(September 1998). A reply from the authors of the application was published at the
same time (BZN 55: 181-185), incorporating some emendations to the original

80 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003

proposals. A further opposing comment from Drs Murray D. Bruce and Ian A.W.
McAllan was published in BZN 56: 274-279 (December 1999), together with a reply
from the originating authors (BZN 56: 279-280). An additional comment from Bruce
& McAllan was published in BZN 57: 113 (June 2000).

The emendments (BZN 55: 184-185; September 1998) made by Schodde and Bock
to their original application were incorporated in the proposals for voting. Further
emendments derived from these comments or inherent in the case were listed in the
voting paper.

Decision of the Commission

On | March 2001 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 54: 175-181 with the emendments set out in BZN 55:
184-185 and the additional proposals listed in the voting paper.

At the close of the voting period on | June 2001 the votes were as follows: 9
Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, 11 Commissioners voted AGAINST,
Alonso-Zarazaga abstained, no votes were received from Dupuis and Song.

Some of the Commissioners who voted against the Application commented that
case-by-case consideration of individual names would have been preferable, and the
suggestion was made that the Commission should not concern itself with original
source references where the stability of the actual name was not endangered.

No names are placed on Official Lists or Indexes so as to allow for any future
proposals relating to names where there are nomenclatural problems that need to be
resolved.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 81

OPINION 2027 (Case 3010)

Usage of 17 specific names based on wild species which are
pre-dated by or contemporary with those based on domestic animals
(Lepidoptera, Osteichthyes, Mammalia): conserved

Abstract. The Commission has conserved the usage of 17 specific names based on
wild species, which are pre-dated by or contemporary with those based on domestic
forms. The majority of wild progenitors and their domestic derivatives share the same
name, but in the 17 cases considered (1 Lepidoptera, 1 Osteichthyes and 15
Mammalia) the wild and domestic forms have been separately named and this has
created confusion.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Mammalia; Perissodactyla; Artiodactyla;
Rodentia; Carnivora; Lepidoptera; Osteichthyes; names for wild species with
domestic derivatives; Equus africanus; Equus ferus; Camelus ferus; Lama guanicoe;
Vicugna vicugna; Bos primigenius; Bos gaurus; Bubalus arnee; Bos mutus; Capra
aegagrus; Ovis orientalis; Cavia aperea; Canis lupus; Mustela putorius; Felis silvestris;
Carassius gibelio; Bombyx mandarina; ass; tarpan; Bactrian camel; guanaco; vicuna;
aurochs; gaur; water buffalo; yak; bezoar; Asian mouflon; guinea pig; wolf; polecat;
wildcat; Prussian carp; gibel carp; mulberry silk moth.

Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power:

(a) it is hereby ruled that the name for each of the wild species listed in (2) and
(3) below is not invalid by virtue of being pre-dated by a name based on a
domestic form;

(b) the name feruws Falk, 1786, as published in the trinomen Camelus
dromedarius ferus, and all uses of the name Camelus ferus prior to the
publication of Camelus ferus Przewalski, 1878, is hereby suppressed for
the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of
Homonymy.

(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology:

(a) africanus Heuglin & Fitzinger, 1866, as published in the binomen Equus
africanus (North African wild ass) (Mammalia);

(b) ferus Boddaert, 1785, as published in the binomen Equus ferus (Russian
wild horse, tarpan) (Mammalia);

(c) ferus Przewalski, 1878, as published in the trinomen Camelus bactrianus
ferus (wild Bactrian camel, now restricted to the western Gobi desert)
(Mammalia);

(d) guanicoe Miller, 1776, as published in the binomen Camelus guanicoe
(South American guanaco) (Mammalia);

(e) vicugna Molina, 1782, as published in the binomen Camelus vicugna (South
American vicuna) (Mammalia);

82 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003

(f) primigenius Bojanus, 1827, as published in the binomen Bos primigenius
(aurochs of Europe, Asia and North Africa, extinct since 1627)
(Mammalia);

(g) arnee Kerr, 1792, as published in the binomen Bos arnee (Indian water
-_ buffalo, arni) (Mammalia);

(h) mutus Przewalski, 1883, as published in the binomen Poephagus mutus
(Asian yak) (Mammalia);

(i) aegagrus Erxleben, 1777, as published in the binomen Capra aegagrus
(bezoar of the Middle East) (Mammalia);

(j) orientalis Gmelin, 1774, as published in the binomen Ovis orientalis
(mouflon of Western Asia) (Mammalia);

(k) aperea Erxleben, 1777, as published in the binomen Cavia aperea (South
American cavy) (Mammalia);

(1) /upus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Canis lupus (wolf of the
Palaearctic, India and North America) (Mammalia);

(m)gibelio Bloch, 1782, as published in the binomen Cyprinus gibelio (Prussian
or gibel carp of Central Europe to East Asia) (Osteichthyes);

(n) mandarina Moore, 1872, as published in the binomen Theophila mandarina
(mulberry silk moth of China, Korea and Japan) (Lepidoptera).

To the entries for the following specific names on the Official List of Specific

Names in Zoology is hereby added an endorsement to record the ruling in

(1)(a) above: ‘

(a) gaurus H. Smith, 1827, as published in the binomen Bos gaurus (gaur of
India, Burma and Malaya) (Mammalia);

(b) putorius Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Mustela putorius
(polecat of Europe, Middle East and Morocco) (Mammalia);

(c) silvestris Schreber, 1777, as published in the trinomen Felis catus silvestris
(wildcat of Western Europe to Western China and Central India, much of
Africa) (Mammalia).

The name ferus Falk, 1786, as published in the trinomen Camelus dromedarius

ferus (Mammalia) and as suppressed in (1)(b) above, is hereby placed on the

Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.

(3

ey

=

History of Case 3010

An application for the conservation of usage of the first available specific name
based on a wild population for 15 wild species of mammals with domestic derivatives
was received from Mrs Anthea Gentry (Cuckfield, Haywards Heath, West Sussex,
U.K.), Dr Juliet Clutton-Brock (Working Group on Nomenclature, International
Council of Archaeozoology, clo The Natural History Museum, London, U.K.) and Prof
Colin P. Groves (The Australian National University, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) on
14 December 1995. The case was published in BZN 53: 28-37 (March 1996). Notice
of the case was sent to appropriate journals.

Comments in support of the application were published in the following issues of
the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature:

BZN 53: 125 (June 1996).

BZN 53: 192-200 (September 1996). 18 comments, with a note of support from a
further five authors.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 83

BZN 53: 286-288 (December 1996). Four comments.

BZN 54: 119-123 (June 1997). Four comments.

BZN 54: 189 (September 1997).

BZN 55: 43-46 (March 1998).

BZN 55: 119-120 (June 1998).

BZN 56: 72-73 (March 1999). Two comments.

BZN 58: 231-233 (September 2001).

Four comments opposing the application were published in BZN 54: 123-127
(June 1997). A reply by the authors of the application was published at the same time.
Further replies were included in comments by Dr I. Lehr Brisbin (The University of
Georgia, Aiken, South Carolina, U.S.A.; BZN 55: 43-46, March 1998), Dr Christian
R. Altaba Unstitut Mediterrani d’Estudis Avancats, Palma de Mallorca, Illes Balears,
Spain; BZN 55: 119-120, June 1998) and Prof Hans-Peter Uerpmann (/nstitut fiir
Ur- und Friihgeschichte und Archdologie des Mittelalters, Tiibingen, Germany; BZN
58: 231-233, September 2001).

An opposing comment was also published in BZN 56: 280-282 (December 1999).
Replies to this comment were published by Prof Uerpmann and by the authors of the
application in BZN 58: 231—234 (September 2001).

A statement of the intention and scope of the application was published by the
authors of the case in BZN 59: 48-50 (March 2002).

In his supportive comment, published in BZN 53: 194 (September 1996), Dr
Achilles Gautier (Universiteit Gent, Gent, Belgium) recommended that for consistency
Cyprinus (currently Carassius) gibelio Bloch, 1782 and Theophila (currently Bombyx)
mandarina Moore, 1872 should be placed on the Official List as the specific names for
the wild species of Prussian or gibel carp and the mulberry silk moth respectively
(para. 10 of the application). On the voting paper it was proposed that these names
be added to the list of those in para. 11(2) of the application and they have been
included in the current ruling.

Dr A.V. Abramov (Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences,
St Petersburg, Russia), also commenting in support of the application (BZN 53:
287, December 1996), noted that the name Camelus ferus (published as C.
bactrianus ferus) dates from Przewalski (1878), and not Przewalski (1883) as given
in the application. He proposed that the earlier homonym C. dromedarius ferus
Falk, 1786 be suppressed to conserve Przewalski’s (1878) name. The date for C.
ferus Przewalski was emended in para. 11(2)(c) of the application, and the
additional proposals published in BZN 53: 287 were submitted for voting.
Suppression of the name C. dromedarius ferus Falk, 1786 has been incorporated in
the current ruling.

The specific names of Felis silvestris Schreber, 1777 and Bos gaurus H. Smith,
1827 were placed on the Official List in Opinions 465 (May 1957) and 1348
(September 1985) respectively. The specific name of Mustela putorius Linnaeus,
1758 (type species of Putorius Cuvier, 1816, placed on the Official List in Opinion
91, October 1926) was placed on the Official List in Direction 22 (November
1955).

The names listed in the ruling above, which are the first available names in use
based on wild populations, apply to wild species and include those for their domestic
derivatives if these are not distinguishable.

84 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003

Decision of the Commission

On | September 2002 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 53: 33 (with the emendment of the date of Camelus
bactrianus ferus Przewalski to 1878), the proposals published in BZN 53: 287, and the
addition of the specific names of Cyprinus gibelio Bloch, 1782 and Theophila
mandarina Moore, 1872.

At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2002 the votes were as follows:
19 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, 5 Commissioners voted AGAINST,
Bouchet abstained, no votes were received from B6hme and Dupuis, Ng was on leave
of absence.

Original references

The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List, on an
Official Index, and the names on an Official List for which the entries are endorsed, by the
ruling given in the present Opinion:

aegagrus, Capra, Erxleben, 1777, Systema regni animalis . . . Classis | (Mammalia), p. 260.

africanus, Equus, Heuglin & Fitzinger, 1866, Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der
Wissenschaften. Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Classe, 54: 588.

aperea, Cavia, Erxleben, 1777, Systema regni animalis . .. Classis 1 (Mammalia), p. 348.

arnee, Bos, Kerr, 1792, The animal kingdom or zoological system of the celebrated Sir Charles
Linnaeus, vol. 1, part 1 (Mammalia), p. 336.

ferus, Camelus bactrianus, Przewalski, 1878, From Kul’dzha through Tyan’-Shan’ to Lob-Nor,
pp. 20, 43. [In Russian].

ferus, Camelus dromedarius, Falk, 1786, Beitrdge zur topographischen Kenntnis des Russischen
Reiches, vol. 3, p. 292.

ferus, Equus, Boddaert, 1785, Elenchus Animalium, vol, 1 (Sistens Quadrupedia), p. 159.

gaurus, Bos, H. Smith, 1827, The Ruminantia. Vol. 4 in Griffith, E., Smith, C.H. & Pidgeon,
E. (Eds.), The animal kingdom arranged in conformity with its organisation, by the Baron
Cuvier, with additional descriptions of all the species hitherto named, and of many not before
noticed, p. 399.

gibelio, Cyprinus, Bloch, 1782, Oeconomische Naturgeschichte der Fische Deutschlands, vol. 1,
js Hl,

guanicoe, Camelus, Miller, 1776, Des Ritters Carl von Linné . . . voustandigen Natursystems.
Supplements und Register, p. 50.

lupus, Canis, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 39.

mandarina, Theophila, Moore, 1872, Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1872:
576.

mutus, Poephagus, Przewalski, 1883, Third journey in Central Asia. From Zaisan through Khami
into Tibet and to the sources of the Yellow River, p. 191. [In Russian].

orientalis, Ovis, Gmelin, 1774, Reise durch Russland zur Untersuchung der drey Natur-Reiche,
vol. 3, pp. 432, 486.

primigenius, Bos, Bojanus, 1827, Nova Acta Physico-Medica Academiae Caesareae Leopoldino
Carolinae, 13(2): 477.

putorius, Mustela, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 46.

silvestris, Felis catus, Schreber, 1777, Die Sdugthiere in Abbildungen nach der Natur, mit
Beschreibungen, vol. 3, p. 39.

vicugna, Camelus, Molina, 1782, Saggio sulle storia naturale del Chile, p. 313.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 85

OPINION 2028 (Case 3073)

Vespertilio pipistrellus Schreber, 1774 and V. pygmaeus Leach, 1825
(currently Pipistrellus pipistrellus and P. pygmaeus; Mammalia,
Chiroptera): neotypes designated

Abstract. The Commission has designated neotypes for two broadly sympatric
species of pipistrelle bats, which until recently have been considered to be a single
taxon under the name Pipistrellus pipistrellus (Schreber, 1774). The existence of two
separate species was first detected from differences in the ultrasonic echolocation calls
of the two species.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Mammalia; = Chiroptera; bats;
VESPERTILIONIDAE; Pipistrellus; Pipistrellus pipistrellus; Pipistrellus pygmaeus.

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary power all previous fixations of type specimens for the

following nominal species are hereby set aside:

(a) Vespertilio pipistrellus Schreber, 1774 and the adult male specimen no.
BMNH 1997.81 from Beauvais Cathedral, Normandy, France, collected in
October 1996, is designated as the neotype;

(b) Vespertilio pygmaeus Leach, 1825 and the adult female specimen no.
BMNH 1999.43 from Chew Valley Lake, Bath and North East Somerset,
U.K., collected in October 1998, is designated as the neotype.

(2) The name Pipistrellus Kaup, 1829 (gender: masculine), type species by
monotypy Vespertilio pipistrellus Schreber, 1774, is hereby placed on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names

in Zoology:

(a) pipistrellus Schreber, 1774, as published in the binomen Vespertilio
pipistrellus and as defined by the neotype designated in (1)(a) above
(specific name of the type species of Pipistrellus Kaup, 1829);

(b) pygmaeus Leach, 1825, as published in the binomen Vespertilio pygmaeus
and as defined by the neotype designated in (1)(b) above.

(3

ma

History of Case 3073

An application for the designation of neotypes for Vespertilio pipistrellus Schreber,
1774 and V. pygmaeus Leach, 1825 was received from Prof Gareth Jones (University
of Bristol, Bristol, U.K.) and Dr Elizabeth M. Barratt (Institute of Zoology,
Zoological Society of London, London, U.K.) on 21 October 1997. After correspon-
dence the case was published in BZN 56: 182-186 (September 1999). Notice of the
case was sent to appropriate journals.

The application sought to establish names for two reproductively isolated cryptic
species of pipistrelle bats which until 1993 were considered to be a single taxon under
the name Pipistrellus pipistrellus (Schreber, 1774). The species are distinguished by

86 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003

the frequency of their ultrasonic echolocation calls and other features (para. 4 of the
application). It was proposed that the much used name P. pipistrellus be retained for
the species with the lower frequency call (45 kHz) and that the oldest available
synonym, P. pygmaeus (Leach, 1825), be adopted for the species with the higher
frequency. call (55 kHz).

The intention of the application was to stabilise both P. pipistrellus and
P. pygmaeus by the designation of neotypes that are in accord with the current usage
of the names (i.e. for taxa distinguished by their phonic calls), and the application
was submitted to the Commission for a ruling under Article 75.6 of the Code.

Some of those who commented on the case welcomed the use of the name
P. pipistrellus for the 45 kHz phonic type but favoured the adoption of P.
mediterraneus Cabrera, 1904, rather than P. pygmaeus, for the 55 kHz phonic type.
As noted in a number of comments, P. mediterraneus was not the earliest available
name after P. pygmaeus; it is, in fact, 91 years junior to pygmaeus and one of the most
recent names. There are 15 available synonyms between P. pygmaeus and P.
mediterraneus and it is not known to which phonic type or types any of the names
applies. If adopted, P. mediterraneus could potentially have been displaced by one of
the intermediate synonyms. ;

Five comments in support of the application were published in BZN 57: 49-50
(March 2000), together with a comment opposing the use of the name P. pygmaeus
for the 55 kHz phonic type.

A comment by Drs Otto von Helversen and Frieder Meyer (Universitat Erlangen,
Erlangen, Germany) and Dr Dieter Kock (Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg, Frankfurt
am Main, Germany), published in BZN 57: 113-115 (June 2000), supported the use
of P. pipistrellus and the designation of a neotype for the 45 kHz calling species, but
proposed the adoption of P. mediterraneus rather than P. pygmaeus for the second
species. A comment in support of the application, and another from one of the
authors of the application, Prof Gareth Jones, were published at the same time.

A reply to Helversen et al. by Prof Gareth Jones was published in BZN 58: 60-61
(March 2001).

A comment from Dr Victor Van Cakenberghe (Universiteit Antwerpen, Antwerp,
Belgium), published in BZN 58: 230-331 (September 2001), supported the desig-
nation of a neotype for P. pipistrellus but favoured the use of P. mediterraneus rather
than P. pygmaeus. A reply to this comment by Prof Gareth Jones was published in
BZN 58: 309 (December 2001).

Decision of the Commission

On | September 2002 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 56: 185.

At the close of the voting period on | December 2002 the votes were as follows: 24
Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, 1 Commissioner voted AGAINST, no
votes were received from Bohme and Dupuis, Ng was on leave of absence.

Voting for, Cogger commented: “While some proponents for and against the
selection of Pipistrellus pygmaeus as the name for the second cryptic species have
exaggerated the strength of their cases and/or the weakness of the opposing
arguments, there is clearly an.element of personal preference for a name rather than
for the most stable nomenclatural outcome. I agree with the applicants that their

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 87

proposed solution is likely to result in the greatest stability and least confusion’.
Voting against, Alonso-Zarazaga commented: ‘I am fully in favour of adopting the
name P. mediterraneus for the 55 kHz phonic type and, if necessary, setting aside any
possible prior synonyms. The adoption of P. pygmaeus for this taxon seems
unjustified to me’.

Original references

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:

Pipistrellus Kaup, 1829, Skizzirte Entwickelungs-Geschichte und Natiirliches System der
Europdischen Thierwelt ... Erster Thiel (welcher die Vogelsdugethiere und Vogel, nebst
Andeutung der Enstehung der letzteren aus Amphibien enthdlt), pp. 98, 188.

pipistrellus, Vespertilio, Schreber, 1774, Die Sdugthiere in Abbildungen nach der Natur mit
Beschreibungen, vol. 1, p. 167.

pygmaeus, Vespertilio, Leach, 1825, Zoological Journal, 1(4): 559.

88 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003

OPINION 2029 (Case 3020)

Megalotragus Van Hoepen, 1932 (Mammalia, Artiodactyla):
conserved, and Alcelaphus kattwinkeli Schwarz, 1932 (currently
Megalotragus kattwinkeli): specific name conserved

Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the generic name Megalotragus Van
Hoepen, 1932 and the specific name M. kattwinkeli (Schwartz, 1932) are conserved.
The generic name has been used consistently for a genus of very large African fossil
antelopes (family BovIDAE), dating from the Pliocene-late Pleistocene. The specific
name M. kattwinkeli refers to an East African species of the genus. The names were
threatened by Rhynotragus Reck, 1925, which had been used only once in 1997, and
R. semiticus Reck, 1925, which had remained unused, and these have been suppressed
except for homonymy.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Mammalia; Artiodactyla; BOvIDAE; ALCELA-
PHINI; antelopes; Pliocene; Pleistocene; Africa; Megalotragus; Megalotragus priscus;
Megalotragus kattwinkeli.

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary power the following names are hereby suppressed for the
purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of
Homonymy:

(a) the generic name Rhynotragus Reck, 1925;
(b) the specific name semiticus Reck, 1925, as published in the binomen
Rhynotragus semiticus.

(2) The name Megalotragus Van Hoepen, 1932 (gender: masculine), type species
by monotypy Megalotragus eucornutus Van Hoepen, 1932 (a junior subjective
synonym of Bubalis priscus Broom, 1909), is hereby placed on the Official List
of Generic Names in Zoology. :

(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names

in Zoology:

(a) kattwinkeli Schwarz, 1932, as published in the binomen A/celaphus
kattwinkeli and as defined by the holotype, specimen no. VI-1099 in the
Bayerischen Staatssammlung fiir Palaontologie und historische Geologie in
Munich;

(b) priscus Broom, 1909, as published in the binomen Bubalis priscus (senior
subjective synonym of Megalotragus eucornutus Van Hoepen, 1932, the
type species of Megalotragus Van Hoepen, 1932).

The name Rhynotragus Reck, 1925 is hereby placed on the Official Index of

Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology, as suppressed in (1)(a)

above.

The name semiticus Reck, 1925, as published in the binomen Rhynotragus

semiticus and as suppressed in (1)(b) above, is hereby placed on the Official

Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.

=

—
Nn
—

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 89

History of Case 3020

An application for the conservation of the name Megalotragus Van Hoepen, 1932
and of the specific name of Alcelaphus kattwinkeli Schwarz, 1932 was received from
Dr A.W. Gentry (The Natural History Museum, London, U.K.) and Mrs Anthea
Gentry (Cuckfield, Haywards Heath, West Sussex, U.K.) on 15 May 1996. The case
was published in BZN 56: 42-47 (March 1999). Notice of the case was sent to
appropriate journals.

It was noted on the voting paper that there was a prima facie case for the
conservation of the names Megalotragus and A. kattwinkeli under Article 23.9.3 of
the Code (para. 5 of the application). The application was supported by Vrba (1997;
para. 5 of the application) and by Dr John M. Harris (Los Angeles County Museum
of Natural History, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.) who noted (in litt. to A.W.
Gentry, May 1995): ‘I have seen a copy of the manuscript on the rediscovery of some
Olduvai bovid types [published by Gentry, Gentry & Mayr, December 1995]. I
heartedly endorse your decision to have Rhynotragus set aside’. The name Rhyno-
tragus has not been used in place of Megalotragus before or since a single use in 1997.

Decision of the Commission

On | September 2002 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 56: 45.

At the close of the voting period on | December 2002 the votes were as follows: 25
Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, no Commissioners voted AGAINST, no
votes were received from Bohme and Dupuis, Ng was on leave of absence.

Original references

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and Official
Indexes by the ruling given in the present Opinion:

kattwinkeli, Alcelaphus, Schwarz, 1932, Zentralblatt fiir Mineralogie, Geologie und
Paldontologie, (B)1932(1): 4.

Megalotragus Van Hoepen, 1932, Paleontologiese Navorsing van die Nasionale Museum,
Bloemfontein, 2(5): 63.

priscus, Bubalis, Broom, 1909, Annals of the South African Museum, 7: 279.

Rhynotragus Reck, 1925, Ilustrirte Zeitung, Leipzig, 164: 451.

semiticus, Rhynotragus, Reck, 1925, Illustrirte Zeitung, Leipzig, 164: 451.

90 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003

OPINION 2030 (Case 3178)

Hippotragus Sundevyall, 1845 (Mammalia, Artiodactyla): conserved

Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the generic name Hippotragus Sundevall,
1845 for the African roan, sable and blaauwbok antelopes and a number of Pliocene
and Pleistocene African and southern Asian fossil species is conserved. This ruling,
which stabilises the nomenclature of hippotragine antelopes at the family-group,
generic and specific levels, rescinds rulings made by the Commission in 1929 and 1955
in which Hippotragus was accepted as available from Sundevall’s later publication
(1846).

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Mammalia; Artiodactyla; HIPPOTRAGINAE;
Hippotragus; Hippotragus equinus; Hippotragus niger; Hippotragus leucophaeus;
antelopes; roan; sable; blaauwbok; Recent; Pliocene; Pleistocene; Asia; Africa.

Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power:

(a) the suppression of the generic name Hippotragus Sundevall, 1845 in
Direction 23 is hereby rescinded;

(b) the entry for Hippotragus Sundevall, 1845 is hereby deleted from the
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology and
the name Hippotragus Sundevall, 1845 (gender: masculine), type species
by monotypy Antilope equina E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1803, is placed on
the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology;

(c) the entry for Hippotragus Sundevall, 1846 is hereby deleted from the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology;

(d) the entries for the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology are hereby emended:

(i) — equina, as published in the binomen Antilope equina, to record the
authorship and date as E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (1803) and to add
an endorsement that it is the specific name of the type species of
Hippotragus Sundevall, 1845;

(ii) niger Harris, 1838, as published in the binomen Aigocerus niger, to
record the date and place of publication as 27 January 1838, The
Athenaeum, 535: 71;

(e) the entry on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology for /eucophaea
Pallas, 1766, as published in the binomen Antilope leucophaea, is hereby
emended to record deletion of the statement that it is the type species of
Hippotragus Sundevall, 1846, and addition of an endorsement that it is
defined by the lectotype designated by Husson & Holthuis (1969).

(2) The name HIpPpOTRAGINAE Sundevall, 1845 (type genus Hippotragus Sundevall,

1845) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in

Zoology.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 91

History of Case 3178

An application to conserve the name Hippotragus Sundevall, 1845, and thereby to
stabilise the nomenclature of hippotragine antelopes at the species, genus and
family-group levels, was received from Dr Peter Grubb (London, U.K.) on 10 October
2000. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 58: 126-132 (June 2001).
Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments on this case were
received.

The name Hippotragus Sundevall, 1846, with the type species designated as
Antilope leucophaea Pallas, 1766, was placed on the Official List in Opinion 109 (June
1929). However, the earlier publication of Hippotragus by Sundevall (1845) and the
type species by monotypy Antilope equina E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1803 were then
overlooked. Opinion 109 was endorsed by the suppression of Hippotragus Sundevall,
1845 in Direction 23 (November 1955) and A. /eucophaea was placed on the Official
List in Direction 22 (November 1955). The current ruling rescinds Direction 23 and
emends Direction 22 under Article 80.9 of the Code.

The Catalogue des mammiféres du Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle by
Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (1803) was confirmed by the Commission as available
for nomenclatural purposes and placed on the Official List of Works Approved as
Available for Zoological Nomenclature in Opinion 2005 (June 2002). The authorship
and date of the specific name of Antilope equina, which was established in the work,
were therefore correctly attributed to E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (1803) (paras. 9,
11(1)(b) and 11(1)(d)@) of the application).

Decision of the Commission

On | September 2002 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 58: 129-130.

At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2002 the votes were as follows: 25
Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, no Commissioners voted AGAINST, no
votes were received from Bohme and Dupuis, Ng was on leave of absence.

Original references

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists, and to the
names on Official Lists for which the entries are emended, by the ruling given in the present
Opinion:

equina, Antilope, E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1803, Catalogue des mammiféres du Muséum
National d'Histoire Naturelle, p. 259.

Hippotragus Sundevall, 1845, Ofversigt af Kongl. Vetenskaps-Akademiens Férhandlingar,
Andra Argangen, 1845(2, 3): 31.

Hippotragus Sundevall, 1846, Kongliga Vetenskaps-Akademiens Handlingar, 1846: 196.

HIPPOTRAGINAE Sundevall, 1845, Ofversigt af Kongl. Vetenskaps-Akademiens Férhandlingar,
Andra Argangen, 1845(2, 3): 31.

leucophaea, Antilope, Pallas, 1766, Miscellanea Zoologica, p. 4.

niger, Aigocerus, Harris, 1838 (27 January), The Athenaeum, 535: 71.

The following is the reference for the designation of the lectotype of Antilope leucophaea
Pallas, 1766:

Husson, A.M. & Holthuis, L.B. 1969. Zoologische Mededelingen, 49: 153.

92 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003

INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS

The following notes are primarily for those preparing applications to the Commis-
sion; other authors should comply with the relevant sections. Applications should be
prepared in the format of recent parts of the Bulletin; manuscripts not prepared in
accordance with these guidelines may be returned.

General. Applications are requests to the Commission to set aside or modify the
Code’s provisions as they relate to a particular name or group of names when this
appears to be in the interest of stability of nomenclature. Authors submitting cases
should regard themselves as acting on behalf of the zoological community and the
Commission will treat all applications on this basis. Applicants should discuss their
cases with other workers in the same field before submitting applications, so that they
are aware of any wider implications and the likely reactions of other zoologists.

Text. Typed in double spacing, this should consist of numbered paragraphs setting
out the details of the case and leading to a final paragraph of formal proposals to the
Commission. Text references should give dates and pages in parentheses, e.g. ‘Daudin
(1800, p. 49) described ...’. The Abstract will be prepared by the Commission’s
Secretariat.

References. These should be given for all authors cited. Where possible, ten or more
reasonably recent references should be given illustrating the usage of names which are
to be conserved or given precedence over older names. The title of periodicals should
be in full and in italics; numbers of volumes, parts, etc. should be in arabic figures,
separated by a colon from page numbers. Book titles should be in italics and followed
by the number of pages and plates, the publisher and place of publication. More
detailed instructions on the preparation of references are given in BZN 59: 159-160.

Submission of Application. One copy should be sent to: Executive Secretary, the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History
Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. It would help to reduce the time
it takes to process the large number of applications received if the typescript could be
accompanied by a disk with copy in IBM PC compatible format, or the script sent via
e-mail to ‘iczn@nhm.ac.uk’ within the message or as an attachment (disks and
attachments to be in Word, rtf or ASCII text). It would also be helpful if applications
were accompanied by photocopies of relevant pages of the main references where this
is possible.

The Commission’s Secretariat is very willing to advise on all aspects of the
formulation of an application.

Contents — continued

On the proposed conservation of usage of Chrysodema Laporte & Gory, 1835 and
‘Tridotaenia Deyrolle, 1864 (Insecta, Coleoptera) by the designation of C. sonnerati
Laporte & Gory, 1835 as the type species of Chrysodema. R. Westcott .

On the proposed conservation of Pelastoneurus Loew, 1861 (Insecta, Diptera).
J.M. Cumming & J.R. Vockeroth. :

On the proposed conservation of the soeeite. name or Nemeras “walling
Herrich-Schaeffer in Stainton, 1851 (currently Nemophora violella; Insecta,
Lepidoptera). E.J. van Nieukerken; Z. LaSttvka . F

On the proposed conservation of usage of the names Phymaturus Grmentorsn 1837
and Lacerta palluma Molina, 1782 (currently Phymaturus palluma; Reptilia,
Sauria) by designation of a neotype for Lacerta palluma Molina, 1782.
R.E. Espinoza . as ete

Rulings of the Commission

OPINION 2016 (Case 2888). Valdivianemertes Stiasny-Wijnhoff, 1923 ey,
not conserved 4

OPINION 2017 (Case 2983). Mchaninellastrim Pfeiffer, 1854 andl ACHATINELLIDAE
Gulick, 1873 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): conserved

OPINION 2018 (Case 3192). BULIMINIDAE Kobelt, 1880 (Micitineey iGustropaday
spelling emended to BULIMINUSIDAE, so removing the homonymy with BULIMINIDAE
Jones, 1875 (Rhizopoda, Foraminifera); and ENIDAE Woodward, 1903 (1880)
(Gastropoda): given precedence Over BULIMINUSIDAE Kobelt, 1880 .

OPINION 2019 (Case 2899). Dodecaceria concharum Orsted, 1843 and Hererocirr us
fimbriatus Verrill, 1879 (currently D. fimbriata) (Annelida, Polychaeta): conser-
vation of usage of the names by the designation of a neotype for D. concharum
not approved siege Ry LR

OPINION 2020 (Case 3078). Daerah Say, 1818 (Crustacea, (eummcen): tonne rathkii
Kroyer, 1841 designated as type species :

OPINION 2021 (Case 3048). NYMPHULINAE uponchel 1945 (insects: Depidenters):
not given precedence over ACENTROPINAE Stephens, 1835.

OPINION 2022 (Case 3197). Glassia Davidson, 1881 (Brachiopoda} G Blonnata
Davidson, 1881 designated as the type species .

OPINION 2023 (Case 3195). Polonograptus Tsegelnjuk, 1976 (Graptolithing):
P. podoliensis Piibyl, 1983 designated as the type species .

OPINION 2024 (Case 3140). Sceloporus occidentalis Baird & Girard! 1952 (Restilial
Sauria): rediscovered syntypes replaced by a neotype . :

OPINION 2025 (Case 3191). Pareiasaurus karpinskii Amalitzky, 1922 (curently
Scutosaurus karpinskii; Reptilia, Pareiasauria): specific name conserved . 3
OPINION 2026 (Case 3044). Generic and specific names of birds (Aves) con-
ventionally accepted as published in the Proceedings or Transactions of the
Zoological Society of London and monographic works by John Gould and other

contemporary zoologists: suppression of prior usages not approved

OPINION 2027 (Case 3010). Usage of 17 specific names based on wild species
which are pre-dated by or contemporary with those based on domestic animals
(Lepidoptera, Osteichthyes, Mammalia): conserved .

OPINION 2028 (Case 3073). Vespertilio pipistrellus Schreber, 1774 aad V pygmaeus
Leach, 1825 (currently Pipistrellus pipistrellus and P. pygmaeus; Mammalia,
Chiroptera): neotypes designated . Rar means, BUA ie

OPINION 2029 (Case 3020). Meraionaeus Van Eoenen 1932 (Mammalia,
Artiodactyla): conserved, and Alcelaphus kattwinkeli Schwarz, 1932 (currently
Megalotragus kattwinkeli): specific name conserved .

OPINION 2030 (Case ae Hpo tans S Sundevall, 1845 (Mammalia 2, Artiodactyla)
conserved .

Information and Instructions for Authors

53

53

54

58

59

61

63

66

68

70

2

74

76

77

79

81

85

88

90

92

CONTENTS

Notices .

The International Covaeeert: on ‘Zoological Nomenclature and) its publications
Addresses of members of the Commission

International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature

The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature :

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclanire .

General Article
Zoological Record and registration of new names in zoology. J. Thorne .

Applications

Erbocyathus Zhuravleva, 1955 (Archaeocyatha): Pree conservation. F. Debrenne,
A.Yu Zhuravlev & P.D. Kruse Jae

Spongia ventilabra Linnaeus, 1767 (eumently Phakellia vonnlahea: *Porifert
proposed conservation of the specific name and ae of a peels

B. Alvarez & R.C. Willan.

be ochraceus Say, 1817 (currently joie coe Svfolluses Bivalvia): pros
posed precedence of the ee name over es fluviatilis Gmelin, 1791.
-J.R. Cordeiro ne

RHOPALURUSINAE uehen 1971 hUcinide Soamnloacs BUTHIDAE): prouoeed
conservation as the correct spelling to remove homonymy with RHOPALURIDAE
Stunkard, 1937 (Orthonectida). V. Fet, M.E. Petersen & G.S. Slyusarev . ;

Zeriassa Pocock, 1897 (September) (Arachnida, Solifugae): proposed precedence
over Canentis Pavesi, 1897 (August). M.S. Harvey .

Geostiba Thomson, 1858 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed eaneeredont VI Gussrey

Acmaeodera Eschscholtz, 1829 and Acmaeoderella Cobos, 1955 (Insecta, Coleoptera):
proposed conservation of usage by designation of Buprestis cylindrica Fabricius,
1775 as the type species of Acmaeodera. C.L. Bellamy & M.G. Volkovitsh

Lyda latifrons Fallén, 1808 and L. gyllenhali Dahlbom, 1835 (currently Pamphilius
latifrons and P. gyllenhali; Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed conservation of usage
of the specific names by designation of a neotype for ne latifrons. A. Shinohara,
M. Viitasaari & V. Vikberg . Rater ea lt

Phymaturus Gravenhorst, 1837 and Tucerie vice “Moline: 1782 (currently
Phymaturus palluma; Reptilia, Sauria): proposed conservation of usage of the
names by designation of a neotype for Lacerta eae Molina, 1782. R. Etheridge
& J.M. Savage . :

Vespertilio nanus Peters, 1852 (arreaily Piptsirelius nanus; sven Ommaneray
proposed conservation of the specific name. M. Happold :

Viverra maculata Gray, 1830 (currently Genetta maculata; Mammalia, Carnivora
proposed conservation of the specific name. P. Gaubert et al. .

Comments

On the neotypification of Protists, a Ciliates (Protozoa, Ciliophora).
J.O. Corliss; W. Song .

On the proposed conservation s the ponent names Porites ‘ink, 1807, Galaxea
Oken, 1815, Mussa Oken, 1815 and mE Blainville, 1830 (Anthozoa,
Scleractinia). M.J. Grygier

On the proposed conservation of the sone name of UthdGnd Janii i De Betta &
Martinati, 1855 (currently Cecilioides janii; Mollusca, Gastropoda). R.A. Bank,
G. Falkner & E. Gittenberger; F. Giusti & G. Manganelli . ; sate

16

20

23

26

28

31

34

38
42

45

48

49

51

Continued on Inside Back Cover

Printed in the United Kingdom by Henry Ling Limited, at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, DT! 1HD

in - a

Bulletin Coe

Pdogical
ae

ot
om

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

The Bulletin is published four times a year for the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, a
charity (no. 211944) registered in England. The annual subscription for 2003 is £123
or $220, postage included; individual subscribers for personal use are offered a
subscription of £61 or $110. All manuscripts, letters and orders should be sent to:

The Executive Secretary,

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,

c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road,

London, SW7 5BD, U.K. (Tel. 020 7942 5653)
(e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk)
(http://www.iczn.org)

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Officers

President
Vice-President
Executive Secretary

Members

Dr M. Alonso-Zarazaga
(Spain; Coleoptera)
Prof W. J. Bock (U.S.A.; Ornithology)
Prof Dr W. Bohme
(Germany; Amphibia, Reptilia)
Prof P. Bouchet (France; Mollusca)
Prof D. J. Brothers
(South Africa; Hymenoptera)
Dr D. R. Calder (Canada; Cnidaria)
Dr W. N. Eschmeyer
(U.S.A.; Ichthyology)
Dr N. L. Evenhuis (U.S. A.; Diptera)
Prof R. A. Fortey (U.K.; Trilobita)
Dr R. B. Halliday (Australia; Acari)
Dr I. M. Kerzhner (Russia; Heteroptera)
Prof Dr G. Lamas (Peru; Lepidoptera)
Dr E. Macpherson (Spain; Crustacea)

Secretariat

Dr N. L. Evenhuis (U.S. A.)
Dr W. N. Eschmeyer (U.S. A.)
Dr A. Wakeham-Dawson (U.K.)

Dr V. Mahnert
(Switzerland; Ichthyology)
Prof U. R. Martins de Souza
(Brazil; Coleoptera)
Prof S. F. Mawatari (Japan; Bryozoa)
Prof A. Minelli (/taly; Myriapoda)
Dr P. K. L. Ng (Singapore;
Crustacea, Ichthyology)
Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark; Bryozoa)
Dr L. Papp (Hungary; Diptera)
Prof D. J. Patterson (Australia; Protista)
Dr G. Rosenberg (U.S.A4.; Mollusca)
-Prof D. X. Song (China; Hirudinea)

_ Prof P. Stys

(Czech Republic; Heteroptera)
Mr J. van Tol
(The Netherlands; Odonata)

Dr A. Wakeham-Dawson (Executive Secretary and Bulletin Editor)

Mrs S. Morris (Zoologist)

Mr J. D. D. Smith (Scientific Administrator)
Dr P. K. Tubbs (Nomenclatural Consultant)

Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature

The Earl of Cranbrook (Chairman)

Dr M. K. Howarth (Secretary and Managing Director)

© International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 2003

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 93

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Volume 60, part 2 (pp. 93-176) 30 June 2003

Notices

(1) Applications and correspondence relating to applications to the Commission
should be sent to the Executive Secretary at the address given on the inside of the
front cover. English is the official language of the Bulletin. Please take careful note of
instructions to authors (present in a one or two page form in each volume), as
incorrectly formatted applications will be returned to authors for revision. The
Commission’s Secretariat will answer general nomenclatural (as opposed to purely
taxonomic) enquiries and assist with the formulation of applications. As far as it
can, the Secretariat will check the main nomenclatural references in applications.
Correspondence should be by e-mail to iczn@nhm.ac.uk where possible.

(2) The Commission votes on applications six to eight months after they have been
published, although this period is normally extended to enable comments to be
submitted. Comments for publication relating to applications (either in support or
against, or offering alternative solutions) should be submitted as soon as possible.
Comments may be edited.

(3) Requests for help and advice on the Code can be made direct to the
Commission via the Internet. To register free of charge with the Commission’s
Discussion List send an e-mail to ‘join-iczn-list@lyris.bishopmuseum.org’, leaving
the subject line and body of the message blank (for further details see BZN 59: 234).

(4) The Commission also welcomes the submission of general-interest articles on
nomenclatural themes or nomenclatural notes on particular issues. These may deal
with taxonomy, but should be mainly nomenclatural in content. Articles and notes
should be sent to the Executive Secretary.

New applications to the Commission

The following new applications have been received since the last issue of the
Bulletin (volume 60, part 1, 31 March 2003) went to press. Under Article 82 of
the Code, existing usage of names in the applications is to be maintained until the
Commission’s rulings on the applications (the Opinions) have been published.

CASE 3264: sTAPHYLINIDAE Latreille, 1804 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed
conservation of ten specific names. Author: L.H. Herman (U.S.A.).

CASE 3265: Lathrobium geminum Kraatz, 1857 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed
conservation of the specific name. Author: L.H. Herman (U.S.A.).

94 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003

CASE 3266: Palacortyx phasianoides Milne-Edwards, 1869 (Aves, Galliformes):
proposed conservation of the usage of the specific name by designation of a neotype.
Authors: U.B. Gohlich & C. Mourer-Chauviré (Germany & France).

CASE 3267: Cherax tenuimanus Smith, 1912 and C. cainii Austin, 2002 (Crustacea,
Decapoda): proposed conservation of usage of C. tenuimanus by designation of
neotypes for both C. tenuimanus and C. cainii. Authors: B.W. Molony, B. Jones,
C.S. Lawrence & V.A. Gouteff (Australia).

CASE 3268: Conidophrys Chatton & Lwoff, 1934 (Ciliophora, Pilisuctorida):
proposed conservation. Author: I.V. Dovgal (Ukraine).

CASE 3269: Rhamphomyia (Rhamphomyia) Meigen, 1822 and Rhamphomyia
(Pararhamphomyia) Frey, 1922 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed conservation of the
usage of the subgeneric names by designation of a type species for Rhamphomyia
(Rhamphomyia). Authors: M. Bartak & B.J. Sinclair (Czech Republic & Germany).

CASE 3270: IsoMETRINAE Clark, 1917 (Echinodermata, Crinoidea): proposed
emendation of spelling to ISOMETRAINAE to remove the homonymy with ISOMETRINAE
Kraepelin, 1891 (Arachnida, Scorpiones). Authors: V. Fet & C. Messing (U.S.A.).

CASE 3271: Nematois australis Heydenreich, 1851 (currently Adela australis;
Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name. Authors: M.V.
Kozlov & E.J. van Nieukerken (Finland & The Netherlands).

CASE 3272: Microsaurus Dejean, 1833 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conser-
vation of the usage by designation of Staphylinus ochripennis Menétriés, 1832 as the
type species. Author: A. Smetana (Canada).

CASE 3273: Genetta rubiginosa Pucheran, 1855 (Mammalia, Carnivora): proposed
conservation of the usage of the specific name by designation of a neotype. Author:
P. Grubb (U.K.).

CASE 3274: Hydroporus foveolatus Heer, 1839 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed
precedence of the specific name over Hydroporus nivalis Heer, 1839. Authors: H.V.
Shaverdo & M.A. Jach (Canada & Austria).

CASE 3275: Metromenus Sharp, 1884 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conse.-
vation of the usage by designation of a type species. Authors: J.K. Liebherr, G.M.
Nishida & E.C. Zimmerman (U.S.A. & Australia).

CASE 3276: Primnoa regularis Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1860 (currently Narella
regularis; Coelenterata, Octocorallia): proposed conservation of the usage by
designation of a neotype. Author: S. Cairns & F.M. Bayer (U.S.A.).

CASE 3277: Chitra chitra Nutaphand, 1986 (Reptilia, Testudines): proposed
precedence of the specific name over that of Chitra selenkae Jaekel, 1911. Authors:
W. McCord & P. Pritchard (U.S.A.).

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

The aim of the Commission is to bring stability to the use of animal names
(zoological nomenclature). The Commission does this by:

(a) producing, publishing and periodically revising the International Code of
Zoological Nomenclature (the Code), which deals with the formulation and use of
animal names;

n

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 9

(b) considering and ruling on specific cases of nomenclatural uncertainty and
dispute about animal names that are not automatically resolved under the provisions
of the Code, via applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

The International Congress of Zoology founded the Commission in 1895. At
present, the Commission consists of 25 zoologists from 20 countries whose interests
cover most of the main divisions, including fossil animals (palaeontology), of the
animal kingdom. The Commission is under the auspices of the International Union
of Biological Sciences (IUBS). Commission members are elected by the vote of
zoologists attending General Assemblies of the IUBS or other appropriate con-
gresses. Nominations for membership may be sent to the Executive Secretary at any
time. The Commission’s history is described in Towards Stability in the Names of
Animals (1995). See below under ‘Publications’ for details. Further discussion of the
Commission’s activities can be found in BZN 48: 295-299 (December 1991) and BZN
60: supplement pp. 1-12 (March 2003).

The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature

The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature (the Trust) was founded to
manage the Commission’s financial matters in 1947. It is a registered charity, based
in the U.K. (No. 211944). At present, the Trust consists of 30 members from 14
countries. Discussion of the Trust’s activities can be found in BZN 60: supplement
pp. 1-12 (March 2003).

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature

The aim of the Code is to provide the greatest universality and continuity in the
scientific names of animals without restricting the taxonomy or classification of
the animals for which the names are used. The current (fourth edition) of the Code
was published by the Trust in 1999, and came into effect on 1 January 2000. This
edition supersedes all previous editions and official texts are available in English,
Chinese (traditional), French, German, Japanese, Russian, Spanish and Ukrainian.
C ther translations (including Czech and Catalan) are in preparation. See below under
‘Publications’ for sales details.

The Articles of the Code enable the user to decide the valid name for any animal
taxon between and including subspecies and superfamily. The provisions of the Code
can be waived or modified in particular cases where strict adherence would cause
confusion. However, only the Commission, acting on behalf of all zoologists, can do
this in response to formal applications that are published in the Bulletin.

The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

The Bulletin is published four times each year. The Bulletin includes applications
relating to animal names, comments on applications and the Commission’s eventual
rulings based on the Commissioners’ votes (these are referred to as Opinions). Each
Opinion published in the Bulletin is an official ruling of the Commission and comes

96 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003

into effect on the day of publication of the Bulletin. The Opinions are summarised in
the Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology. The Bulletin also
includes discussion papers on proposed emendations to the Code. See below under
‘Publications’ for how to subscribe to the Bulletin and for details about the Official
Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology.

The Commission’s website

Abstracts of applications and Opinions, and a record of the names included in
the Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology, are posted on the
Commission’s website (www.iczn.org). It is planned for this website to be extensively
revised in the near future.

Publications

All publications listed below may be ordered from: ITZN, c/o The Natural History
Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 S5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). With
the exception of the Bulletin (which can only be ordered from ITZN), these
publications can also be ordered from the American Association for Zoological
Nomenclature (AAZN), Attn, D.G. Smith, MRC-159, National Museum of Natural
History, Washington, D.C. 20560-0159, U.S.A. (e-mail: smith.davidg@nmnh.si.edu).
Prices listed below include surface postage. Please add £2 or $3 if you require postage
by Airmail. Please send payment with orders. Cheques should be made out to ‘ITZN’
(in sterling or dollars) or to “‘AAZN’ (in dollars only). Visa or MasterCard payments
can be made to ITZN (but not AAZN). Please give cardholder’s name, address, card
number and card expiry date when ordering.

The Bulletin subscription for 2003 is £123 or US$220, including postage by
accelerated surface post. Individual subscribers for personal use have a 50% discount
making the subscription £61 or US$110. You are now able to complete your
collection of Bulletins at bargain prices since there are large discounts on both single
volumes and complete sets of the BZN. This applies also to the Opinions and
Declarations (1943-1959), which were published concurrently with volumes 1-16 of
the BZN. A price list is available on application.

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (4th Edition, 1999; ISBN
0 85301 006 4; English and French in one volume) is available at £40 or US$65,
including surface postage. Individual purchasers who are buying the Code for
personal use are offered a 25% discount (£30 or US$48), as are institutions or agents
buying five or more copies. Individual members of the American or European
Associations for Zoological Nomenclature are offered a discount of 40% (price $39
or £24). Information about the prices and availability of the authorised translations
of the Code can be obtained from the following e-mail addresses:

Chinese (traditional) — wenhua@oceantaiwan.com
German — books@insecta.de

Japanese — tomokuni@kahaku.go.jp

Russian — kim@ik3599.spb.edu

Spanish — menaz39@mncn.csic.es

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 97

The Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology gives details of all
the names and publications on which the Commission has ruled since it was set up in
1895. The first volume published in 1987 contains 9917 entries, and a Supplement
(2001) lists an additional 2385 entries. The cost of the 1987 volume and of the
Supplement is £60 or US$110 each, with reductions for both volumes ordered
together and for individual buyers for personal use. Details available on request.

Towards Stability in the Names of Animals — a History of the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1895-1995 was published in 1995 in
recognition of ICZN’s Centenary. This book (104 pages) contains 18 full-page
illustrations, 14 being of eminent zoologists who played a crucial part in the
development of animal nomenclature. The cost is £30 or US$50.

Funding appeal

The Convention on Biological Diversity was adopted in Rio (1992) and its
objectives were reinforced in Johannesburg (2002). As a result, international,
regional, and local governments now recognise the need to underpin their sustain-
ability policies with inventories of current biological diversity. About 2 million of the
earth’s living-organisms have been formally named since the time of Linnaeus. By the
best estimates, over 13 million others remain to be described and named. This
massive task will rely on expanded IT capabilities, and the development of new
IT-based systems and procedures.

The Commission will be a key player in these initiatives. With the new urgency to
identify and catalogue life on earth, the Commission’s continuing task will be to
provide the secure animal naming system that underpins zoological taxonomy,
biodiversity science, and all other applications of zoological taxonomy. The Com-
mission must now invest in skilled staff and the necessary computer equipment to
fulfil its unique responsibilities and keep pace with emerging IT-based identification
and naming practices.

The Trust seeks to establish an endowment fund to provide lasting financial
security for the Commission’s vital work. The appeal was formally launched at the
20th Pacific Science Congress in Bangkok, 17-21 March 2003. The appeal is now
being extended worldwide. Accompanying the March 2003 issue of the Bulletin was
a supplement (BZN 60: supplement pp. 1-12; March 2003) and a leaflet outlining the
background to and aims of the appeal. Further copies of both documents are
available from the Executive Secretary. The Trust urges all those with the necessary
resources to assist in the establishment of an endowment fund that will ensure the
continuation and development of the Commission’s essential work. All levels of
support are greatly appreciated and make an impact.

98

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003

The

1) International

_ Commission on
Zoological
Nomenclature

The Earl of Cranbrook (Chairman of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature) discusses the

work of the Commission with two delegates at the 20th Pacific Science Congress in Bangkok, March 2003.

(Picture by Neal Evenhuis)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 99

Case 3211

CLIONIDAE @’Orbigny, 1851 (Porifera, Hadromerida): proposed
emendment of spelling to CLIONAIDAE to remove homonymy with
CLIONIDAE Rafinesque, 1815 (Mollusca, Pteropoda)

Philippe Bouchet

Muséum national d Histoire naturelle, 55 rue Buffon, 75005 Paris, France
(e-mail: pbouchet@cimrs!.mnhn.fr)

Klaus Rutzler

National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington,
DC 20560, U.S.A. (e-mail: ruetzler.klaus@nmnh.si.edu)

Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 29 and 55.3.1 of the Code,
is to remove homonymy between the family names CLIONIDAE Rafinesque, 1815
(Mollusca) and cLionipAe d’Orbigny, 1851 (Porifera) by changing the spelling of the
junior homonym. It is proposed that the entire name C/iona Grant, 1826 (Porifera)
be used to form CLIONAIDAE, leaving the stem of the senior homonym (based on the
name Clione Pallas, 1774; Mollusca) unchanged. Clione Pallas, 1774 and Clio
Linnaeus, 1767 are respectively the type genera of CLIONIDAE Rafinesque, 1815
(Mollusca) and cLiomar Jeffreys, 1869 (Mollusca).

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; CLIOIDAE; CLIONAIDAE; CLIONIDAE; Clio; Cliona;
Clione; Clio pyramidata; Cliona celata; Clione borealis; pteropods; boring sponges.

1. Rafinesque (1815, p. 141) established a subfamily for a group of gymnosome
pteropods (Mollusca) and named it “Chonidia’. Under Article 29.2 of the Code, this
name has an incorrect suffix for a subfamily. The suffix should be —INAE, giving
CLIONINAE. The type genus was given by Rafinesque as “Clione R. Clio Brown’ [sic],
and the context indicates that Clione Pallas, 1774 was meant. The type species of
Clione by monotypy is Clione borealis Pallas, 1774 (p. 28, pl.1, figs. 18-19). C. borealis
is a junior synonym of Clio limacina Phipps, 1774 (p. 195). The respective months of
publication of the works by Pallas (1774) and Phipps (1774) are being investigated
and will be made available to the Commission before it votes on this application.

2. The genus Clio was described and named by Linnaeus, 1767 (p. 1094), based on
a pre-Linnaean work, The civil and natural history of Jamaica, by Patrick Browne
(1756). Linnaeus (1767) included three nominal species: C. caudata, C. pyramidata
and C. retusa. He referred to descriptions of these made by Browne (1756). Phipps
(1774, p. 195) then added two additional nominal species C. helicina and C. limacina
(see above), referring to the rare English translation of Martens’s (1675) pre-
Linnaean work Spitzbergische oder Groenlandische Reise Beschreibung.

3. The type species of Clio is Clio pyramidata Linnaeus, 1767 by subsequent
designation by Gray (1847, p. 203). Clio Linnaeus, 1767 is the type genus of the
family CLIOIDAE Jeffreys, 1869 (p. 118). The similarity of the names C/io Linnaeus,

100 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003

1767 and Clione Pallas, 1774 has meant that usage of these names has been confused.
It was not until after the 1840s that Clio was generally used for a group of thecosome
molluscs and Clione became generally used as the name for a group of gymnosome
molluscs (e.g. Gray, 1847).
4. The standard modern reference on the Gymnosomata is by van der Spoel (1976,
pp. 97-103), who incorrectly gives Gray (1840) as the author of the family name
CLIONIDAE and Pruvot-Fol (1926) as the author of the subfamily name CLIONINAE.
Under Articles 11.7.1.3, 34.1 and 36.1 of the Code, both the names CLIONINAE and
CLIONIDAE used in relation to gymnosome pteropods retain Rafinesque, 1815 as
correct authorship and date.
5. D’Orbigny (1851, p. 209) established the family name CLIONIDAE for a group of
boring sponges (hadromeridan Porifera) designating Cliona Grant, 1826 (p. 78) as the
type genus. The type species of Cliona by monotypy is Cliona celata Grant, 1826 (p.
78). In the last 100 years, numerous publications have used the family name
CLIONIDAE d’Orbigny, 1851. Examples include Annandale (1915, p. 1), de Laubenfels
(1936, p. 154), Volz (1939), Old (1941), Hartman (1958), and more recently Pang
(1973), Rutzler (1986), Vicente et al. (1991), Bavastrello et al. (1996), Hooper &
Wiedenmayer (1994) and Rosell & Uriz (1997). All modern textbooks and reviews of
systematics, ecology, and biology of sponges (Porifera) use the name CLIONIDAE,
although (if it is given) authorship is always incorrectly attributed to Gray, 1867 (e.g.
Brien et al. (1973), Bergquist (1978) and Hartman (1982)).
6. CLIONIDAE d’Orbigny, 185t is a junior homonym of CLIONIDAE Rafinesque, 1815,
and has no synonym that could be used as a replacement name. We propose to
remove this homonymy by using the entire genus name Cliona as the stem for the
formation of the sponge (poriferan) family name.
7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to rule that for the purposes of Article 29 of the Code
the stem of the generic name Cliona Grant, 1826 is Cliona-;
to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) Clio Linnaeus, 1767, type species by subsequent designation by Gray (1847)
Clio pyramidata Linnaeus, 1767 (Mollusca);

(b) Clione Pallas, 1774, type species by monotypy Clione borealis Pallas, 1774
(Mollusca);

(c) Cliona Grant, 1826, type species by monotypy Cliona celata Grant, 1826
(Porifera);

to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:

(a) pyramidata Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Clio pyramidata
(the specific name of the type species of Clio Linnaeus, 1767) (Mollusca);

(b) limacina Phipps, 1774, as published in the binomen Clio limacina (senior
synonym of Clione borealis Pallas, 1774, the specific name of the type
species of Clione Pallas, 1774) (Mollusca);

(c) celata Grant, 1826, as published in the binomen Cliona celata (the specific
name of the type species of Cliona Grant, 1826) (Porifera);

to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the following

names:

(a) CLIONIDAE Rafinesque, 1815, type genus Clione Pallas, 1774 (Mollusca);

(2

—

_~
Ww
SS

(4

—

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 101

(b) CLIONAIDAE d’Orbigny, 1851, type genus Cliona Grant, 1826 (spelling
emended by the ruling in (1) above) (Porifera);
(c) cLiomDAE Jeffreys, 1869, type genus Clio Linnaeus, 1767 (Mollusca);
(5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in
Zoology the name CLIONIDAE d’Orbigny, 1851 (an incorrect original spelling of
CLIONAIDAE, as ruled in (1) above) (Porifera).

Acknowledgements
We thank Jean-Paul Rocroi, Anders Warén and John Taylor for helping us in
preparing this application.

References

Annandale, N. 1915. Indian boring sponges. Records of the Indian Museum, 11: 1—24.

Bayastrello, G., Calcinai, B., Cerrano, C., Pansini, M. & Sara, M. 1996. The taxonomic status
of some Mediterranean clionids (Porifera: Demospongiae) according to morphological
and genetic characters. Bulletin de l'Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique,
Biologie, 66(supplement): 185-195.

Bergquist, P.R. 1978. Sponges. 268 pp. Hutchinson, London.

Brien, P., Lévi, C., Sara, M., Tuzet, O. & Vacelet, J. 1973. Spongiaires. Jn Grasse, P.-P. (Ed.),
Traité de zoologie: anatomie, systématique, biologie, vol. 3(1). 716 pp. Masson, Paris.

Grant, R.E. 1826. Notice of a new zoophyte (Cliona celata Gr.) from the Firth of Forth. The
Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal, 1826: 78-81.

Gray, J.E. 1847. A list of genera of Recent Mollusca, their synonyma and types. Proceedings
of the Zoological Society of London, 15: 129-182.

Gray, J.E. 1867. Notes on the arrangement of Sponges, with descriptions of some new genera.
Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1867: 492-558.

Hartman, W.D. 1958. Natural history of the marine sponges of southern New England.
Porifera. Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University Bulletin, 20: 1-94.

Hartman, W.D. 1982. Porifera. Pp. 640-660 in Parker, S.P. (Ed.), Synopsis and classification of
living organisms, vol. 1. McGraw Hill, New York.

Hooper, J.N.A. & Wiedenmayer, F. 1994. Porifera. In Wells, A. (Ed.), Zoological catalogue
of Australia, vol. 12. 624 pp. CSIRO Australia, Melbourne.

Jeffreys, J.G. 1869. British conchology, vol. 5. 258 pp., 102 pls. Van Voorst, London.

Laubenfels, M.W. de. 1936. A discussion of the sponge fauna of the Dry Tortugas in particular,
and the West Indies in general, with material for a revision of the families and orders of
the Porifera. Papers of the Tortugas Laboratory, 30: 1-225.

Linnaeus, C. 1767. Systema Naturae, Ed. 12, vol. 1. 1327 pp. Salvi, Holmiae.

Martens, F. 1675. Spitzbergische oder Groenlandische Reise Beschreibung, gethan im Jahre 1671.
135 pp., 16 pls. Hamburg.

Old, M.C. 1941. The taxonomy and distribution of the boring sponges (Clionidae) along the
Atlantic coast of North America. Chesapeake Biological Laboratory (Solomons Island,
Maryland, U.S.A.), 44: 1-30.

d@’Orbigny, A. 1851. Cours élémentaire de paléontologie et de géologie stratigraphiques, vol. 2.
847 pp. Masson, Paris.

Pallas, P.S. 1774. Spicilegia Zoologica, vol. 1, fasc. 10. 42 pp., pls 1-4, 10 unnumbered pp.,
index to fasc. 1-10. Berlin.

Pang, R.K. 1973. The systematics of some Jamaican excavating sponges (Porifera). Postilla,
161: 1-75.

Phipps, C.J. 1774. A voyage towards the North Pole undertaken by His Majesty's command
1773. 253 pp., 14 pls. London.

Rafinesque, C.S. 1815. Analyse de la Nature ou tableau de l'univers et des corps organisés.
223 pp. Palerme.

102 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003

Rosell, D. & Uriz, M.J. 1997. Phylogenetic relationships within the excavating Hadromerida
(Porifera), with a systematic revision. Cladistics, 13: 349-366.

Riitzler, K. 1986. Phylum Porifera. Pp. 111-127 in Sterrer, W. (Ed.), Marine fauna and flora of
Bermuda, a systematic guide to the identification of marine organisms. John Wiley, New
York.

Spoel, S. van der. 1976. Pseudothecosomata, Gymnosomata and Heteropoda ( Gastropoda). 484
pp. Bohn, Scheltema & Holkema, Utrecht.

Vicente, V.P., Riitzler, K. & Carballeira, N. 1991. Comparative morphology, ecology, and fatty
acid composition of West Indian Spheciospongia (Demospongea). Marine Ecology, 12:
211-226.

Volz, P. 1939. Die Bohrschwamme der Adria. Thalassia, 3(2): 1-64.

Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 58: 162.

Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 103

Case 3249

Lithasia Haldeman, 1840 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed
conservation

Russell L. Minton

Department of Zoology, Field Museum of Natural History, 1400 S. Lake
Shore Drive, Chicago, IL 60605, U.S.A. (e-mail: rminton@fmnh.org)

Arthur E. Bogan

North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences, 4301 Reedy Creek Road,
Raleigh, NC 27607, U.S.A. (e-mail: arthur.bogan@ncmail.net)

Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to
conserve the name Lithasia Haldeman, 1840 for a genus of freshwater prosobranch
gastropods (family PLEUROCERIDAE) from the eastern United States. This name is
already on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology and has been in continuous
use for over 140 years. However, it is threatened by a senior subjective synonym
Ellipstoma Rafinesque, 1818. The name Ellipstoma has had little usage, and then
mainly in lists. The names of its included species have never been adopted and
suppression of the name E//ipstoma is proposed.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Gastropoda; PLEUROCERIDAE; freshwater
prosobranch gastropods; Lithasia; Lithasia geniculata; eastern United States.

Application to the Commission

1. Rafinesque (1818b, p. 42) briefly described a new genus Ellipstoma and included
three new nominal species: E. gibbosa, E. rugosa and E. zonalisa. Hannibal (1912,
p. 168) subsequently designated E. gibbosa as the type species of Ellipstoma.
Morrison (1954, p. 363) claimed that Hannibal had misidentified the type species.
In addition, Burch (1979, p. 98) stated that ‘the identity of Ellipstoma gibbosa
Rafinesque, 1818 is too doubtful to give nomenclatural validity to Ellipstoma
Rafinesque, 1818’. The name Ellipstoma has had little usage, and then mainly in
lists. The names of its included species have never been adopted and Ellipstoma
does not appear in the online version of Zoological Record (1978-2001) or GeoRef
(1758-2001).

2. Agassiz (1846a, p. 33) misspelled the name as Ellipsostoma and attributed it to
Rafinesque, 1819 and later (Agassiz, 1846b, p. 136) listed this misspelling. Millard
(1997, p. 86; 2001, p. 422) misspelled the genus as Ellipsoma.

3. Haldeman (1840, p. 1) described the genus Lithasia, and included one new
species, L. geniculata, the type species of the genus by monotypy. The name Lithasia
is already on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology (see Opinion 1195; BZN
38: 259-265, November 1991). In addition, it has been used extensively in studies of
the North American gastropod fauna (e.g. Walker, 1918; Morrison, 1940; Goodrich,

104 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003

1941; Clench, 1965; Burch, 1979; Ahlstedt, 1980; Bogan & Parmalee, 1983;
Clarke, 1983; Bogan et al., 1995; Holznagel & Lydeard, 2000; Minton, 2002). The
Commission Secretariat holds an additional 33 usage references.

4. Morrison (1954, p. 363) considered Ellipstoma gibbosa (the type species of
Ellipstoma Rafinesque, 1818) to be a senior subjective synonym of both Melania
armigera Say, 1821 (currently Lithasia armigera) and L. geniculata (the type species
of Lithasia Haldeman, 1840). This synonymy means that Ellipstoma is a senior
subjective synonym of Lithasia.

5. In order to avoid undesirable changes in nomenclature and to preserve the
stability of generic names in the family PLEUROCERIDAE, we propose that the widely
used name Lithasia Haldeman, 1840 be conserved under Article 23.9.3 by the
suppression of its senior subjective synonym Ellipstoma Rafinesque, 1818. Lithasia
has had considerable usage (see para. 3 above), but Ellipstoma has had limited usage
in the last 100 years (see para. 1 above) preventing automatic conservation of Lithasia
under Article 23.9.1.1. Lithasia and its type species L. geniculata are already on the
Official Lists (Opinion 1195; see para. 3 above).

6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:

(1) to use its plenary power to suppress the generic name Ellipstoma Rafinesque,

1818 for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the

Principle of Homonymy;

(2) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in

Zoology the following names:

(a) Ellipstoma Rafinesque, 1818, as suppressed in (1) above;

(b) Ellipsostoma Agassiz, 1846 (an incorrect subsequent spelling of Ellipstoma
Rafinesque, 1818);

(c) Ellipsoma Millard, 1997 (an incorrect subsequent spelling of E/lipstoma
Rafinesque, 1818).

Supporting information

1. In 1818, Rafinesque indicated that E//ipstoma included four species, but did not
list them (Rafinesque, 1818c, p. 107). The following year (1819, p. 424) he listed
E. gibbosa, emended E. zonalisa to E. Zonalis, and added two more nominal species
to Ellipstoma: E. marginula and E. vittata (these are nomina nuda).

2. Haldeman (1841, p. 1) described the genus Angitrema, with Melania armigera
Say, 1821 as the type species by monotypy. Herrmannsen (1852, p. 74) listed Lithasia
and included only L. geniculata. Tryon (1863, 1865b) used Lithasia as a subgenus of
Angitrema, but subsequently elevated Lithasia to full generic status (Tryon, 1865c).
Pilsbry & Rhoads (1896, p. 496) considered Angitrema to be a subgenus of Lithasia,
a decision that was further supported by Goodrich (1921).

3. Errors regarding the date of publication for Ellipstoma are common.
Herrmannsen (1846, p. 418) & Scudder (1882, p. 120) both listed Ellipstoma (correct
spelling), but cited 1819 as the date for the name. They also noted the variant spelling,
Ellipsostoma (see para. 2 of the Application above). Later Scudder listed only the
correct spelling, but again cited the date as 1819 (Scudder, 1884, p. 110). Sherborn
(1926, p. 2117) and Neave (1939, p. 214) correctly listed the date of publication for
Ellipstoma as 1818, and also noted the 1819 reference. Sherborn (1926, p. 2117) also
noted Agassiz’s misspelling. Stein (1976, p. 38) following Morrison (1954, p. 363)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 105

used Pleurocera (Ellipstoma) gibbosa, but cited the date of publication of the specific
name as 1820.

4. Recognition and usage of specific names included in Ellipstoma have been
inconsistent. Binney (1860, pp. 8-9) listed E. gibbosa and E. zonalis, but E. marginula
was listed as E. marginata, and all were placed in the genus Melania; E. rugosa was
overlooked. H. & A. Adams (1854, p. 301) used Me/ania and included the misspelling
Ellistoma as a synonym. Later, Binney (1863, p. 325) listed E. gibbosa, E. zonalis and
E. rugosa, but overlooked E. marginula. Tryon (1873, p. xxi) reviewed all the
preceding work on the family stREPOMATIDAE. Under the genus Leptoxis he com-
mented on Rafinesque’s 1819 paper and decided not to accept the genus Ellipstoma
or any of its included species. He later concluded that Ellipstoma Rafinesque, 1819
was a senior synonym of Anculosa Say, 1821 (Tryon, 1873, p. xxxiv). Both Pilsbry
(1917, pp. 110-111) and Goodrich (1929, p. 2) listed Ellipstoma and the included
species as indeterminate. Fischer (1885, p. 706), Thiele (1929, p. 194) and Wenz (1938,
p. 701) listed Ellipstoma Rafinesque, 1818 with a question mark under the genus
Anculosa. Vaught (1989, p. 29) and Millard (1997, p. 86; 2001, p. 422) tentatively (and
in the latter case as a misspelling, see para. 2 of the Application above) included it
under Anculosa. Morrison (1954, p. 363) recognized Ellipstoma containing a single
species as a subgenus of Pleurocera, using Pleurocera verrucosa Rafinesque as
the type species of Plewrocera. Stansbery (1971, p. 11) listed Ellipstoma gibbosa
Rafinesque, 1818 as rare and endangered with no further comments. Graf's (2001)
lexicon not only overlooked all four species included by Rafinesque in Ellipstoma but
incorrectly credited Binney as author of the taxa. Consistent usage of the name
Ellipstoma was limited to works by Morrison (1954) and Stein (1976).

5. Rafinesque (1818a, p. 355) described a new genus Plewrocera and included six
nominal species without descriptions, rendering them nomina nuda. The following
year he again described the genus but without including any species (Rafinesque,
1819, p. 423). He later described P. verrucosa, the first species with an available name
to be included in the genus (Rafinesque, 1820, p. 11). The incorrect subsequent
spelling Plewrocerus was published in combination with the new specific name
P. acutus Rafinesque in Blainville, 1824 (p. 236) and subsequently corrected to
Pleurocera acuta (Rafinesque, 1831, p. 3). Tryon (1864, p. 24) applied the name
Pleurocera to the group including P. acuta. Hannibal (1912, p. 169) subsequently
designated P. verrucosa as the type species of Pleurocera based on a rough sketch in
Rafinesque’s unpublished ‘Conchologia Ohioensis’ that to him clearly represented
Melania nupera Say, 1829, a junior subjective synonym of P. verrucosa. Walker (1917,
p. 2) stated that reference to Rafinesque’s unpublished ‘Conchologia Ohioensis’ was
‘entirely inadmissible . . . under any construction of the International Code’. He
further argued (p. 7) that ‘Hannibal’s designation of verrucosa as the type of
Pleurocera, in 1912, [was] entirely immaterial, as it was either invalid or unnecessary
... and then (p. 9) formally designated Pleurocera acuta ‘as the type of the genus
Pleurocera Raf.’.

6. The problem concerning the type species of Plewrocera was resolved by Opinion
1195 (BZN 38: 259-265) fixing it under the plenary power as Pleurocerus acutus
Rafinesque in Blainville, 1824. The Commission’s ruling on the type species of
Pleurocera allowed P. verrucosa to remain in the genus Lithasia as it had been
considered a species of either Lithasia or Angitrema (=Lithasia).

106 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003
References

Adams, H. & Adams, A. 1854. The genera of Recent Mollusca, vol. |. xl, 484 pp. London.

Agassiz, L. 1846a. Nomina systemica generum molluscorum (recognoverunt J.E. Gray, C. Th.
Menke, et H.E. Strickland). Pp. xiv, 98 [separately paginated] in Agassiz, L. [1842-1846],
Nomenclator zoologicus, continens nomina systematica generum Animalium, tam viventium
quam fossilium. Jent & Gassmann, Soloduri.

Agassiz, L. 1846b. Nomeclatoris zoologici; index universalis. Pp. vii, 393 [separately pagi-
nated] in: Nomenclator zoologicus, continens nomina systematica generum Animalium, tam
viventium quam fossilium. Jent & Gassmann, Soloduri.

Ahlstedt, S.A. 1980. The molluscan fauna of the Duck River between Normandy and
Columbia Dams in central Tennessee. Bulletin of the American Malacological Union, 1980:
60-62.

Binney, W.G. 1860. Checklist of the shells of North America. Fluviatile Gastropoda.
Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 2(6): 7-13.

Binney, W.G. 1863. Bibliography of North American conchology previous to the year 1860.
Part I. American Authors. vii, 650 pp. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

Blainville, H.M.D. de. 1824. Mollusques, Mollusca (Malacoz.). Pp. 1-392 in: Dictionnaire des
Sciences Naturelles, vol. 32. 567 pp. Levrault, Paris.

Bogan, A.E. & Parmalee, P.W. 1983. The Mollusks. Tennessee's Rare Wildlife, vol. 2. 123 pp.
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Nashville.

Bogan, A.E., Pierson, J.M. & Hartfield, P. 1995. Decline in the freshwater gastropod fauna in
the Mobile Basin. Pp. 249-252 in LaRoe, E.T., Farris, G.S., Puckett, C.E., Doran, P.D.
& Mac, M.J. (Eds.), Our living resources: a report to the Nation on the distribution,
abundance, and health of U.S. plants, animals, and ecosystems. U.S. Department of the
Interior, National Biological Service, Washington D.C.

Burch, J.B. 1979. Genera and subgenera of Recent freshwater gastropods of North America
(North of Mexico). Malacological Review, 12: 97-100.

Clarke, A.H. 1983. The distribution and relative abundance of Lithasia pinguis (Lea),
Pleurobema plenum (Lea), Villosa trabalis (Conrad), and Epioblasma sampsoni (Lea).
American Malacological Bulletin, 1: 27-30.

Clench, W.J. 1965. A new species of Lithasia from Mississippi. Nautilus, 79(1): 30-33.

Fischer, P. 1885. Part 8, pp. 689-784 in Fischer, P., Manuel de conchyliologique et de
Paléontologie conchyliologique ou Histoire naturelle des Mollusques vivants et fossiles suivi
d'un appendice sur les branchiopodes. 1369 pp. Savy, Paris.

Goodrich, C. 1921. Something about Angitrema. Nautilus, 35(2): 58—S9.

Goodrich, C. 1929. The pleurocerid fauna 6f the falls of the Ohio. Nautilus, 43(1): 1-17.

Goodrich C. 1941. Studies of the gastropod family Pleuroceridae VII. Occasional Papers of the
Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, 447: 1-13.

Graf, D.L. 2001. The cleansing of the Augean stables, or a lexicon of the nominal species
of the Pleuroceridae (Gastropoda: Prosobranchia) of recent North America, north of
Mexico. Walkerana, 12: 1-124.

Haldeman, S.S. 1840. A monograph of the Limniades, or freshwater univalve shells of North
America, containing descriptions of apparently new animals in different classes, and the
names and characters of the subgenera in Paludina and Anculosa. Supplement to Number
One. 3 pp. [Philadelphia].

Haldeman, S.S. 1841. A monograph of the Limnaides and other freshwater univalve shells of
North America. No. 3, [Limnea]. 16 pp. Dobson, Philadelphia.

Hannibal, H. 1912. A synopsis of the Recent and Tertiary freshwater Mollusca of
the California Province, based upon ontogenetic classification. Proceedings of the
Malacological Society of London, 10: 112-211.

Herrmannsen, A.N. 1846. Indicis Generum Malacozoorum Primordia, vol. 1. 637 pp. Fischeri,
Cassellis.

Herrmannsen, A.N. 1852. Indicis Generum Malacozoorum. Supplementa et CBSA 140 pp.
Fischeri, Cassellis.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 107

Holznagel, W.E. & Lydeard, C. 2000. A molecular phylogeny of North American Pleuroceri-
dae (Gastropoda: Cerithioidea) based on mitochondrial 16S rDNA sequences. Journal of
Molluscan Studies, 66: 233-257.

Millard, V. 1997. Classification of Mollusca. A classification of world wide Mollusca. 544 pp.

Victor Millard, South Africa.

Millard, V. 2001. Classification of Mollusca. A classification of world wide Mollusca, Ed. 2.

1447 pp. Victor Millard, South Africa.

Minton, R.L. 2002. A cladistic analysis of the genus Lithasia (Caenogastropoda: Pleuroceridae)

using morphological characters. Nautilis, 116(2): 39-49.

Morrison, J.P.E. 1940. Haldeman’s 1840 supplement. Nautilus, 54(2): 64-66.

Morrison, J.P.E. 1954. The relationships of Old and New World Melanians. Proceedings of the

United States National Museum, 103(3225): 357-394.

Neave, S.A. 1939. Nomenclator zoologicus. A list of the names of genera and subgenera in
zoology from the tenth edition of Linnaeus 1758 to the end of 1935, vol. 2, D-L. 1025 pp.
Zoological Society of London, London.

Pilsbry, H.A. 1917. Rafinesque’s genera of fresh-water snails. Nautilus, 30(10): 109-114.

Pilsbry, H.A. & Rhoads, S.N. 1896. Contributions to the zoology of Tennessee, No. 4.
Mollusks. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, 48: 487-506.

Rafinesque, C.S. 1818a. Discoveries in natural history, made during a journey through the
western region of the United States, by Constantine Samuel Rafinesque, Esq. addressed
to Samuel L. Mitchell, president and other members of the Lyceum of Natural History,
in a letter dated at Louisville, falls of Ohio, 20 July, 1818. American Monthly Magazine
and Critical Review, 3: 354-355.

Rafinesque, C.S. 1818b. Further accounts of discoveries in natural history, in the western
States, by Constantine Samuel Rafinesque, Esq., communicated in a letter from that
gentleman to the editor. American Monthly Magazine and Critical Review, 4: 42.

Rafinesque, C.S. 1818c. General account of the discoveries made in the zoology of the Western
States, by C.F. [sic] Rafinesque, in 1818. American Monthly Magazine and Critical Review,
4: 106-107.

Rafinesque, C.S. 1819. Prodome de 70 nouveaux genres d’animaux découverts dans lintérieur
des Etats-Unis d’Américque, durant l'année 1818. Journal de Physique, de Chimie,
d Histoire Naturelle, 88: 423-428.

Rafinesque, C.S. 1820. Annals of nature, or annual synopsis of new genera and species of animals,
plants, etc., discovered in North America. First annual number. 16 pp. Lexington.

Rafinesque, C.S. 1831. Enumeration and account of some remarkable natural objects of the
cabinet of Prof. Rafinesque, in Philadelphia: being animals, shells, plants, and fossils,
collected by him in North America, between 1816 and 1831. 8 pp. Philadelphia.

Say, T. 1821. Description of univalve shells of the United States. Journal of the Academy of
Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, 2: 149-179.

Say, T. 1829. Descriptions of some new terrestrial and fluviatile shells of North America. New
Harmony Disseminator of useful knowledge, 2(17): 259-261.

Scudder, S.H. 1882. Part I. Supplemental list. Jn Scudder, S.H., Nomenclator Zoologicus. An
alphabetical list of all generic names that have been employed by naturalists for recent and
fossil animals from the earliest times to the close of the year 1879. Bulletin of the United
States Museum, 19(1): 1-376.

Scudder, S.H. 1884. Part II. Universal index to genera in zoology. Complete list of generic
names employed in zoology and paleontology to the close of the year 1879, and contained
in the nomenclators of Agassiz, Marschall, and Scudder, and in the Zoological Record.
In Scudder, $.H., Nomenclator Zoologicus. An alphabetical list of all generic names that
have been employed by naturalists for Recent and fossil animals from the earliest times to
the close of the year 1879. Bulletin of the United State National Museum, 19(2): 1-340.

Sherborn, C.D. 1926. Part 9 [Index Dorsalis—Eurystomus] (1801-1850). Pp. 2009-2248 in:
Index animalium sive Index nominum quae ab A.D. MDCCLVIII generibus et speciebus
animalium imposita sunt. British Museum, London.

Stansbery, D.H. 1971. Rare and endangered freshwater mollusks in Eastern United States.
Pp. 5—18f in Jorgenson, S.E. & Sharp, R.E. (Eds.), Proceedings of a symposium on rare and

108 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003

endangered mollusks (naiads) of the U.S. 79 pp. Fish and Wildlife Service, United States
Department of the Interior, Washington D.C.

Stein, C.B. 1976. Gastropods. Pp. 21-41 in Boschung, H. (Ed.), Endangered and threatened
species of Alabama. Bulletin of the University of Alabama Museum of Natural History.
No. 2. Tuscaloosa.

Thiele, J. 1929. Handbuch der systematischen Weichtierkunde, vol. 1. 778 pp. Fischer, Jena.

Tryon, G.W. 1863, 1864, 1865a. Synonymy of the species of Strepomatidae, a family of
fluviatile Mollusca, inhabiting North America. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural
Sciences, Philadelphia, [1863] 15: 306-321; [1864] 16: 24-48: [1865a] 17: 19-36.

Tryon, G.W. 1865b. Observations on the family Strepomatidae. American Journal of
Conchology, 1(2): 97-135.

Tryon, G.W. 1865c. Monograph of the family Strepomatidae. American Journal of Conchology,
1: 299-321.

Tryon, G.W. 1873. Land and freshwater shells of North America. Part 4. Strepomatidae.
No. 253. [Separately paginated] lv, 435 pp. in: Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 16
[1880].

Vaught, K.C. 1989. A classification of the living Mollusca. 195 pp. American Malacologists,
Melbourne, Florida.

Walker, B. 1917. The type of Pleurocera Rafinesque. Occasional Papers of the Museum of
Zoology, University of Michigan, 38: 1-10.

Walker, B. 1918. A synopsis of the classification of the freshwater Mollusca of North America,
North of Mexico, and a catalogue of the more recently described species, with notes.
Miscellaneous Publications, Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, 6: 1-213.

Wenz, W. 1938-1944. Gastropoda. Teil I: Allgemeiner Teil; und Prosobranchia. Handbuch der
Paldozoologie, vol. 6. 948 pp. Berlin.

Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 59: 161.

Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 109

Case 3232

Melania curvicostata Reeve, 1861 and Goniobasis paupercula Lea,
1862 (currently Elimia curvicostata and E. paupercula; Mollusca,
Gastropoda): proposed conservation by designation of a neotype for
M. curvicostata

Fred G. Thompson

Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville,
Florida 23611, U.S.A. (e-mail: fgt@fimnh.ufl.edu)

Elizabeth L. Mihalcik
Bainbridge College, Bainbridge, Georgia 31717, U.S.A.

Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 75.5 and 75.6 of the Code,
is to conserve, by designation of a neotype for Melania curvicostata, the specific
names of two well-known freshwater snail species: Melania curvicostata Reeve, 1861
(currently Elimia curvicostata) and Goniobasis paupercula Lea, 1862 (currently E.
paupercula) (family PLEUROCERIDAE) from the southeastern U.S.A. The nomenclatural
stability of these names is threatened because none of the remaining syntypes of E.
curvicostata is the one that was figured in the original description of E. curvicostata.
This syntype is believed to be lost and the remaining syntypes have recently been
recognized as specimens of E. paupercula.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Mollusca; Gastropoda; PLEUROCERIDAE; Elimia
curvicostata; Elimia paupercula; freshwater snails; southeastern United States.

1. The names Melania curvicostata and M. densicostata were established by Reeve
(1861, pl. 58, species 462 and 465 respectively) for what he thought were two species
of freshwater snails (currently Elimia, family PLEUROCERIDAE) from Florida in the
southeastern U.S.A. The genus Elimia H. & A. Adams, 1854 (p. 300) consists of
approximately 135 recognized species of freshwater snails. In the adults of most
species the juvenile whorls, which have characters important for species discrimi-
nation and phylogenetic interpretation, are lost above the apical plug (Thompson,
2000). This causes convergence in adult shell appearance among different species
within the genus. The original figures and descriptions of both nominal taxa are
virtually identical and since Tryon (1864, p. 34) the two names have been treated as
synonyms. The name E. curvicostata (Reeve, 1861) has priority by action of the First
Reviser (see Tryon, 1864, p. 34; Clench & Turner, 1956; Chambers, 1990, p. 262;
Article 24.2) over E. densicostata (Reeve, 1861). The syntypes of both E. curvicostata
(BMNH 1994056) and E. densicostata (BMNH 1994057) are from the Hugh Cuming
Collection in The Natural History Museum, London. The syntypes were sent to
Cuming by John G. Anthony with manuscript labels stating their locality as ‘Florida,
United States’. This is the type locality published by Reeve (1861). As Anthony is

110 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003

known to have sometimes confused locality data (see Goodrich, 1931), we have little
assurance that these specimens actually came from Florida. The shells figured in
the original descriptions of both these species are no longer present in either of the
respective syntype series.

2. In the case of Elimia curvicostata, the original illustration shows a more elongate
and slender specimen than any currently present in the syntype series. Recent
examination of the extant syntypes of E. curvicostata has revealed that the specimens
are in fact Goniobasis paupercula Lea, 1862 (p. 268), currently Elimia paupercula (see
Lea, 1863, p. 324, pl. 38, fig. 176 for illustrations), a well-known species from
tributaries of the Tennessee River in northern Alabama (see Goodrich, 1940, p. 15;
Burch & Tottenham, 1980, p. 140). The lectotype of E. paupercula (USNM 118923;
Graf, 2001, p. 79) is accurately depicted by Lea’s illustration and there is no question
that it is the same species as extant populations in northern Alabama. Figure 1
illustrates a syntype of E. curvicostata and Figures 2 & 3 illustrate specimens for
comparison of E. paupercula from a known locality. If the extant syntypes of E.
curvicostata are considered to represent the original concept to which this name was
applied then the name E. curvicostata is a senior subjective synonym of E. paupercula.
However, as stated in para. | above, this appears to have been a composite type series
and only the figured specimen (now believed lost) actually belonged to the nominal
taxon known as E. curvicostata.

3. The extant syntypes of Elimia densicostata exhibit some of the adult shell
characters of E. curvicostata .Reeve, 1861. One of the syntypes is illustrated in
Figure 4. However, the heavy ribs, lack of spiral striations and single peripheral spiral
cord on the uppermost juvenile whorl are features that are common to several species.

4. In order to conserve prevailing usage and maintain stability of the names Elimia
curvicostata and E. paupercula, a specimen (Florida Museum of Natural History
292208) is proposed as the neotype of E. curvicostata. The specimen is labeled:
‘United States, Florida, Jackson Co., Florida Caverns State Park, Blue Hole
Spring, 5-6 miles (9:3 km) north of Marianna (30°44.2’ N, 85°14.6’ W); collected 20
January, 2002 by Fred G. Thompson’. It is illustrated in Figures 5 & 6. The shell is
conical, with a straight-sided spire diverging at an angle of 30°; its periostracum is
brown with a narrow light-tan zone just below the suture and light-tan ribs. The
sculpture is of bold, slightly arched, synchronized ribs that are about as wide as their
interspaces. The ribs continue onto the last whorl where they end at the periphery.
The juvenile portion of the shell has distinct axial ribs that extend from the suture to
the peripheral carina that is weakly scalloped where it intercepts the ribs. Succeeding
whorls are nearly flat-sided. There are 4:8 whorls below the apical plug and 3:2 dead
whorls remaining above. Weak incremental striations are present on and between
ribs; incised spiral striations are absent. There are 15 ribs on the penultimate whorl.
The aperture is broadly elliptical, nearly quadrangular, in shape. The outer lip of
the peristome is moderately receded at the periphery.

5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to use its plenary power to set aside all previous type fixations for the nominal
species Melania curvicostata Reeve, 1861 and to designate as neotype the
specimen (Florida Museum of Natural History 292208) described in para. 4
above;

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 111

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:

(a) curvicostata Reeve, 1861, as published in the binomen Melania curvicostata
and as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above;

(b) paupercula Lea, 1862, as published in the binomen Goniobasis paupercula.

References

Adams, H. & Adams, A. 1854. The genera of Recent Mollusca, vol. |. xl, 484 pp. London.

Burch, J.B. & Tottenham, J.L. 1980. North American freshwater snails: species list, ranges and
illustrations. Walkerana, 1: 81-215.

Chambers, S.M. 1990. The genus Elimia (= Goniobasis) in Florida (Prosobranchia, Pleuro-
ceridae). Walkerana, 4(12): 237-270.

Clench, W.J. & Turner, R.D. 1956. Freshwater mollusks of Alabama, Georgia and Florida
from the Escambia to the Suwannee River. Bulletin of the Florida State Museum, 1(3):
97-239.

Goodrich, C. 1931. Some conchological beginnings. Nautilus, 45: 41-51.

Goodrich, C. 1940. The Pleuroceridae of the Ohio River drainage system. Occasional Papers of
the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, No. 417. 21 pp. Ann Arbor.

Graf, D. 2001. The cleansing of the Augean Stables, or a lexicon of the nominal species of the
Pleuroceridae (Gastropoda: Prosobranchia) of Recent North America, north of Mexico.
Walkerana, 12: 1-124.

Lea, I. 1862. Description of a new genus (Goniobasis) of the family Melaniidae and eighty-two
new species. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 14: 262-272.

Lea, I. 1863. New Melaniidae of the United States. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences,
Philadelphia, 5: 217-356.

Reeve, L. 1861. Monograph of the genus Melania. Conchologica Iconica, vol. 12. 65 pp., 59 pls.
Reeve, London.

Thompson, F.G. 2000. Freshwater snails of the genus Elimia from the Coosa River system,
Alabama. Walkerana, 11(25): 1—54.

Tryon, G.W., Jr. 1864. Synonymy of the species of sTREPOMATIDAE, a family of fluviatile
Mollusca inhabiting North America. Part 2. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural
Sciences of Philadelphia, 1864: 24-48.

Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 59: 69.

Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).

112 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003

Fig. 1. Melania curvicostata Reeve, 1861, syntype BMNH 1994056/1, “Florida, United States’.

Figs. 2 & 3. Goniobasis paupercula Lea, 1862, FMNH 75455, Spring branch affluent of Four-mile Creek,
Killen, Lauderdale Co., Alabama.

Fig. 4. Melania densicostata Reeve, 1861, syntype BMNH 1994057/1, ‘Florida, United States’.
Figs. 5 & 6. Melania curvicostata Reeve, 1861, neotype FMNH 292208, Blue Hole Spring, 5-6 miles

(9-3 km) north of Marianna, Florida Caverns State Park, Jackson Co., Florida, United States (30°44.2’ N,
85° 14.6’ W).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 113

Case 3246

Scorpio chilensis Molina, 1782 (currently Bothriurus chilensis;
Arachnida, Scorpiones): proposed suppression of the specific name

Luis E. Acosta and Camilo I. Matton

CONICET - Catedra de Diversidad Animal I, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas,
Fisicas y Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Cordoba, Av. Vélez Sarsfield
299, 5000 Cordoba, Argentina (e-mail: lacosta@com.uncor.edu)

Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 81.1 of the Code, is to ensure
nomenclatural stability by suppression of the name Scorpio chilensis Molina, 1782
(currently Bothriurus chilensis). It is impossible to determine the actual scorpion
species to which the name Scorpio chilensis was originally applied, and Molina’s
concept probably included more than one taxon. Subsequent authors have applied
the name to various different taxa that occur in Chile and other South American
countries. Any attempt to fix the name Scorpio chilensis to any one taxon would
threaten the usage of the names of the well established Chilean species Bothriurus
vittatus (Guérin Méneville, 1838), B. coriaceus Pocock, 1893 and B. keyserlingii
Pocock, 1893, resulting in nomenclatural instability.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Arachnida; BOTHRIURIDAE; Bothriurus;
Bothriurus coriaceus; Bothriurus keyserlingii; Bothriurus vittatus; Chile; South
America; Scorpiones.

1. The specific name Scorpio chilensis (currently included in family BOTHRIURIDAE)
was introduced by Abbot Juan Ignacio Molina (1782, p. 347) in a book devoted to the
‘geographic, natural and civic history of the Chilean reign’. The original description of
the scorpion to which the name was applied was extremely short and without illus-
trations. It was presented as a footnote (p. 215) and repeated in the systematic account
on p. 347 (‘Scorpio pectinibus 16-dentatis, manibus subangulatis’). Therefore, this is not
a case of a nomen nudum, as claimed by Mello-Leitao (1934). No type material is
known to exist. It is very clear from the text that Scorpio chilensis sensu Molina actually
included not less than two species: ‘their ordinary colour is dark brown, but under
stones of Rio Coquimbo yellow scorpions are found as well’. Cekalovic (1983) and
Lowe & Fet (2000) mistakenly assumed the type locality to be Coquimbo.

2. The present difficulties arise not only from Molina’s work, but also because there
has been no subsequent agreement on which scorpion species was to be denoted by
that name. Were it the case that all or most authors shared the same concept for
Scorpio chilensis (regardless of the specimens that Molina had to hand), it would be
easy to ‘rescue’ or fix the name. However, the history of the usage of this name is too
complicated to allow this to be the case (see Lowe & Fet, 2000). Below we provide a
summary of the confused history of the usage of the name S. chilensis to support our
application for its suppression.

3. Karsch (1879, p. 136) first assumed the nominal species S. chilensis to be
included in the genus Cercophonius Peters, 1861, but at least part of the material he

114 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003

studied actually belongs to the species Bothriurus vittatus (Guérin Méneville, 1838)
and Phoniocercus pictus Pocock, 1893. Pocock (1893) described Bothriurus coriaceus
(p. 95) and B. keyserlingii (p. 96), two common central-Chilean species. Although
these species have themselves at times been confused (see Lowe & Fet, 2000, who still
list B. keyserlingii as junior synonym of B. coriaceus), their taxonomic identities
are now well established (Mattoni & Acosta, unpublished). The same applies to
B. yittatus which has recently been revised by Mattoni (2002).

4. Kraepelin (1894, p. 232) transferred S. chilensis to the genus Bothriurus Peters,
1861, and this generic allocation has hitherto been maintained. No fewer than three
Bothriurus species are included in Kraepelin’s concept of B. chilensis. In addition,
Kraepelin (1894) has synonymised the Brazilian scorpion B. signatus Pocock, 1893
with B. chilensis. This gives a very wide range for Kraepelin’s nominal taxon
B. chilensis; it includes Chile, Peru, Argentina and Brazil. Pocock (1900, p. 478) noted
the inadequacy of Molina’s description and of Kraepelin’s interpretation. We agree
with his statement that ‘the name Scorpio chilensis of Molina may have been founded
upon a species of Hadruroides, or Caraboctonus, or Bothriurus, or, indeed, upon
almost any of the species of Bothriuridae or Vaejovidae that occur in Chile. The fact
that Karsch identified a particular species as. probably referable to the Scorpio
chilensis of Molina has little or no value in settling what chilensis really is’.

5. Several subsequent authors dealt with S. chilensis, with almost no agreement on
the taxonomic concept involved. Borelli (1899, 1900, 1901) maintained Kraepelin’s
confusion. In 1899 (p. 6) he mentioned a female B. chilensis from Buenos Aires,
most probably belonging to B. bonariensis (C.L. Koch, 1836). In 1900 (p. 3), he
mentioned specimens from Valparaiso (which actually comprised B. keyserlingii and
B. coriaceus), as well as material from Temuco. A specimen from Temuco was used
by Mello-Leitao (1934) as the type specimen of his species Bothriurus borellianus
Mello-Leitao, 1934. Finally, Borelli (1901, p. 11) reported specimens of B. chilensis
from Uruguay (La Sierra) and Argentina (San Luis, Villa Holga, Cacheuta,
Misioneras and Rio Santa Cruz), the last three belonging to the ‘Bothriurus
patagonicus species-group’, according to Maury (unpublished). Penther (1913,
p. 252) further recorded B. chilensis from Brazil (Rio Grande do Sul, Blumenau),
Ecuador, Argentina (Mendoza, Potrerillos, San Juan de Perico) and Chile (Juncal).

6. Mello-Leitao (1933, p. 20) referred to B. chilensis material from Cuchilloco,
province of La Pampa (Argentina) and described specimens from Laferrére and
‘Sierras Bajas’. On p. 34 he gives the species range as Chile, Argentina, Peru, Ecuador,
Rio Grande do Sul and Santa Catarina. In 1934 (p. 85), Mello-Leitao discussed the
descriptions of Karsch, Borelli and Guérin Méneville (as B. vittatus), mistakenly
suggesting that S. chilensis should be rejected as a nomen nudum. He then assigned to
the nominal taxa B. karschii Mello-Leitao, 1934, B. borellianus and B. vittatus the
material examined by Karsch (1879), Borelli (1900) and Guérin Meéneville (1838)
respectively. Mello-Leitao (1934) also described as B. prospicuus Mello-Leitao, 1934
those specimens previously identified by him in 1933 as B. chilensis. In his 1945
monograph, Mello-Leitao again changed his mind and redescribed B. chilensis from
material collected in Santiago, remarking that the specimens had ‘dilated hand, fingers
forming with hand an obtuse inferior angle’ and that ‘this feature was well emphasized
by Molina in his very brief diagnosis: . . . manibus subangulatis’. We have examined
these specimens and they belong to the nominal species B. coriaceus.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 115

7. Werner (1934, p. 291) studied Chilean materials from Victoria (Malleco)
and Coronel (Concepcion), both actually B. vittatus (examined by us). Biicherl
(1959, p. 31) re-examined specimens identified by Mello-Leitao as B. chilensis,
concluding that B. keyserlingii is a junior synonym of the former. Bucherl stated in
1963 (p. 197) that ‘B. coriaceus, B. keyserlingti and B. chilensis are today three
unidentifiable species’. He referred to material held in the Museu Nacional (Rio de
Janeiro) that had been determined as B. chilensis and corrected the identification to
B. coriaceus.
8. In his catalogue of the genus Bothriurus, Maury (1981) listed B. chilensis,
summarizing the long controversy around the species but without suggesting any
action. The most recent catalogues (Cekalovic, 1983, p. 46; Lowe & Fet, 2000, p. 29)
still list B. chilensis as the valid name of a supposed widespread taxon from
Argentina, Chile and Ecuador (and possibly Brazil).
9. As paras. 3-8 above show, there is no agreement as to which taxon the name
Scorpio chilensis Molina, 1782 represented at the time of its first description. Authors
have assigned the name to at least seven different species that occur in Chile (B.
vittatus, B. keyserlingii, B. coriaceus, Phoniocercus pictus), Argentina (B. bonariensis,
B. prospicuus) and Brazil (B. signatus). Assuming that the name S. chilensis 1s
really to be referred to the genus Bothiurus, we should seek among central Chilean
species to determine what Molina described. The main candidates are B. vittatus,
B. coriaceus and B. keyserlingii. Not only are the original descriptions of these well
established species much better than that for S. chilensis, but all three still have
existing type specimens, preserved in the The Natural History Museum, London
(B. coriaceus, B. keyserlingii) and in the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris
(B. vittatus). It should be noted that Buthus vittatus (currently Bothriurus vittatus) was
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, and declared not to be
invalid despite its being a junior primary homonym of Buthus vittatus Say, 1821
(Opinion 1680, BZN 49: 163). The few diagnostic characters given by Molina (1782)
proved to be useless. For example, the pectinal teeth count of Scorpio chilensis fits
equally in the known range of all three mentioned Bothriurus (B. vittatus 12-20,
B. coriaceus 12-22, B. keyserlingii 12-20; all with mean values around 16; Mattoni,
in press; Mattoni & Acosta, unpublished). Any attempt to fix the identity of Scorpio
chilensis will result in an arbitrary decision, and will threaten the nomenclatural
stability of this group of scorpions.
10. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to suppress the name chilensis, Molina, 1782, as
published in the binomen Scorpio chilensis, for the purposes of the Principle of
Priority but not for those of the the Principle of Homonymy;

(2) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in
Zoology the name chilensis, Molina, 1782, as published in the binomen Scorpio
chilensis and as suppressed in (1) above.

Acknowledgements

Prof Maria Elena Galiano kindly made available to us unpublished notes of the
late Dr E.A. Maury, which provided valuable information. We also thank Drs Victor
Fet and W. David Sissom for their comments on a draft of our proposal.

116 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003

References

Borelli, A. 1899. Viaggo del Dott. A. Borelli nella Republica Argentina e nel Paraguay. XXIII.
Scorpioni. Bolletino dei Musei di Zoologia ed Anatomia comparata della Reale Universita
di Torino, 14(336): 1-6.

Borelli, A. 1900. Di alcuni Scorpioni del Chile. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural, 4(5): 61—66.

Borelli, A. 1901. Scorpioni raccolti dal Dott. Filippo Silvestri nella Repubblica Argentina e
regioni vicine. Bolletino dei Musei di Zoologia ed Anatomia comparata della Reale
Universita di Torino, 16(403); 1-12.

Biicherl, W. 1959. Escorpides e escorpionismo no Brasil. VIII. Revisao das espécies do género
Bothriurus descritas da Argentina. Memorias do Instituto Butantan, 28: 19-44.

Biicherl, W. 1963. Escorpides e escorpionismo no Brasil. XI. Revisao dos Bothriurideos da
coleg¢ao escorpionica do Museu Nacional do Rio de Janeiro. Memorias do Instituto
Butantan, 30: 187-206.

Cekalovic, K.T. 1983. Catalogo de los escorpiones de Chile (Chelicerata, Scorpiones). Boletin
de la Sociedad de Biologia de Concepcion, 54: 43-70.

Guérin Meneville, F.E. 1838. Arachnides. Pp. 47—S0 in Lesson, R.P., Voyage autour du monde,
exécuté par ordre du Roi, sur la corvette de sa Majesté, La Coquille, pendant les années
1822, 1823, 1824 et 1825, par L.I. Duperrey, Zoologie, vol. 2, pt. 1.

Karsch, F. 1879. Skorpionologische Beitrage. Part Il. Mitteilungen des Miinchener Entomolo-
gischen Verein, 3: 97-136.

Kraepelin, K. 1894. Revision der Scorpione. II. Scorpionidae und Bothriuridae. Jahrbuch der
Hamburgischen Wissenschaftlichen Anstalten, 11(1): 1-248.

Lowe, G. & Fet, V. 2000. Family Bothriuridae Simon, 1880. Pp. 17-53 in Fet, V., Sissom,
W.D., Lowe, G. & Braunwalder, M.E., Catalog of the scorpions of the world (1758-1998 ).
v, 690 pp. New York Entomological Society.

Mattoni, C.1. 2002. La verdadera identidad de Bothriurus vittatus (Guérin Meneville, [1838])

(Scorpiones, Bothriuridae). Revie Arachnologique, 14(5): 59-72.

Maury, E.A. 1981. Estudio sobre el género Bothriurus (Scorpiones, Bothriuridae). I. Catalogo

y comentarios sobre el material tipico. Revista del Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales

“Bernardino. Rivadavia'’, 4(4); 95-111.

Mello-Leitao, C. 1933. Notas sobre escorpides sul-americanos. Archivos do Museu Nacional,

34: 9-46.

Mello-Leitao, C. 1934. Estudo monografico dos escorpides da Republica Argentina. Octava

Reunion de la Sociedad Argentina de Patologia Regional del Norte (1933). 97 pp.

Mello-Leitao, C. 1945. Escorpides sul-americanos. Arquivos do Museu Nacional, 40: 1468.

Molina, G.J.I. 1782. Saggio sulla storia naturale del Chili. 375 pp. Stamperia di S. Tommaso
d Aquino, Bologna. =

Penther, A. 1913. Beitrage zur Kenntnis amerikanischer Skorpione. Annalen des Kaiserlich-
Koniglichen Naturhistorischen Hofmuseums in Wien, 27(3): 239-252.

Pocock, R.I. 1893. A contribution to the study of Neotropical scorpions. Annals and Magazine
of Natural History, (6)12(68): 77-103.

Pocock, R.I. 1900. Some new or little-known neotropical Scorpions in the British Museum.
Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (7)7(5): 469-478.

Werner, F. 1934. Scorpiones und Pedipalpi. Pp 1-136 im Bronns, H.G., Arachnoidea, Klassen
und Ordnungen des Tierreichs. Leipzig.

Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 60: 1.

Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 S5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 117

Case 3238

Rhagodes Pocock, 1897 (Arachnida, Solifugae): proposed conservation

Mark S. Harvey

Department of Terrestrial Invertebrates, Western Australian Museum,
Francis St., Perth, Western Australia 6000, Australia
(e-mail: mark.harvey@museum.wa.gov.au)

Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 81.2.2 of the Code, is to
conserve the generic name Rhagodes Pocock, 1897 for a group of solifuges or sun
spiders (family RHAGODIDAE) by proposed suppression of the older name Rhax
Hermann, 1804. Rhagodes was an unnecessary replacement for Rhax, but has been
used by almost all authors since 1897. Acceptance of the priority of the name Rhax
would not serve nomenclatural stability, as it would require all 27 nominal species
currently included in Rhagodes to be transferred to the nominal genus Rhax.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Arachnida; RHAGODIDAE; Rhagodes; Rhagodes
melanus; solifuges; sun spiders; Asia; Africa.

1. In 1804 (p. 13), Hermann used the name Rhax for a genus of solifuges or sun
spiders (now in family RHAGODIDAE). His brief description of the genus did not
include any nominal species, but was supplemented by observations on some
historical texts in which sun spiders were mentioned (see footnote on p. 13).

2. C.L. Koch (1839) was unable to recognise the taxon as described by Hermann,
but attributed two species to the genus: “Rh. melas’ and ‘Rh. phalangioides’, which
refer to Galeodes melanus Olivier, 1807 (p. 308) and G. phalangium Olivier, 1807
(p. 308), respectively. Under Article 67.2.2 of the Code, both species are eligible for
designation as the type species of Rhax. However, Galeodes phalangium Olivier, 1807
was originally designated as the type species of another nominal genus Rhagoditta
Roewer, 1933 (p. 277). To my knowledge, a type species has not been explicitly
designated for Rhax.

3. The generic name Rhax was used by some later authors (e.g. Simon, 1879;
Kraepelin, 1899, 1901), although these usages attribute the name to C.L. Koch (1839)
and not to Hermann (1804).

4. Pocock (1897, p. 252) was of the opinion, wrongly under the current Code, that
Hermann’s name R/ax was invalid and so he established the replacement name
Rhagodes. Pocock took this view because he believed that Hermann (1804) had
intended Rhax to be a synonym of Galeodes Olivier, 1791. Although he did not
nominate a type species for the genus, Pocock later (1900, p. 148) designated Galeodes
melanus Olivier, 1807 as the type species of Rhagodes, which under Article 67.8 also
becomes the type species of Rhax. Pocock (1897, p. 252) erected the subfamily
RHAGODINAE for Rhagodes, which was elevated to family status by Roewer (1933).
Rhagodes currently contains 27 desert-dwelling species, ranging from central Asia
through to north-eastern Africa.

118 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003

5. Despite the views of Pocock (1897), the name Rhax Hermann, 1804 is available
under the Code and Pocock’s decision to establish a replacement name did no more
than create a junior objective synonym. However, the senior synonym Rhax has not
been used as a valid name since Kraepelin (1901) and has been fully supplanted by
the junior synonym Rhagodes. Reversion to the senior name Rhax would be a
destabilising action that would require all 27 nominal species currently included in
Rhagodes to be transferred to the nominal genus Rhax. Article 23.9.2 cannot be
invoked because Kraepelin used Rhax in 1901.

6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to use its plenary power to suppress the generic name Rhax Hermann, 1804 for
the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of
Homonymy;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Rhagodes
Pocock, 1897 (gender: feminine), type species Galeodes melanus Olivier, 1807
by subsequent designation by Pocock (1900);

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name melanus
Olivier, 1807, as published in the binomen Galeodes melanus (specific name of
the type species of Rhagodes Pocock, 1897);

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in
Zoology the name Rhax Hermann, 1804, as suppressed in (1) above.

References

Hermann, J.F. 1804. Mémoire aptérologique. Levrault, Strasbourg.

Koch, C.L. 1839. Ubersicht des Arachnidensystems, vol. 2. Nirnberg.

Kraepelin, K. 1899. Zur Systematik der Solifugen. Mitteilungen aus dem Naturhistorischen
Museum in Hamburg, 16: 195-258.

Kraepelin, K. 1901. Palpigradi und Solifugae. Das Tierreich, 12: i-xi, 1-159.

Olivier, A.G. 1807. Voyage dans l’Empire Othoman, l'Egypte et la Perse, fait par ordre du
gouvernement, pendant les six premieres années de la République, vol. 3. Agasse, Paris.

Pocock, R.I. 1897. On the genera and species of tropical African Arachnida of the order
Solifugae, with notes upon the taxonomy and habits of the group. Annals and Magazine
of Natural History, (6)20: 249-272.

Pocock, R.I. 1900. The fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma, vol. 6. Arachnida.
279 pp. Taylor & Francis, London. :

Roewer, C.F. 1933. Solifugae, Palpigradi. Pp. 161-480 in Bronn, H.G. (Ed.), Klassen und
Ordnungen des Tierreichs, vol. 5: Arthropoda. IV: Arachnoidea. Akademische Verlags-
gesellschaft, Leipzig.

Simon, E. 1879. Essai d’une classification des Galéodes, remarques synonymiques et descrip-
tion d’espéces nouvelles ou mal connues. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France,
(5)9: 93-154.

Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 59: 70.

Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 119

Case 3244

TERMOPSIDAE Holmgren, 1911, Termopsis Heer, 1849 and Miotermes
Rosen, 1913 (Insecta, Isoptera): proposed conservation of prevailing
usage by the designation of Termopsis bremii Heer, 1849 as the type
species of Termopsis

Michael S. Engel

Division of Entomology, Natural History Museum, Snow Hall,
1460 Jayhawk Boulevard, University of Kansas, Lawrence,
Kansas 66045-7523, U.S.A.

Kumar Krishna and Christopher Boyko

Division of Invertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History,
Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, N.Y. 10024-5192, U.S.A.

Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 70.2 of the Code, is to
conserve the current usage of the generic names Termopsis Heer, 1849 and Miotermes
Rosen, 1913 and the family name TERMopSIDAE Holmgren, 1911 for well known
groups of termites. Both nominal genera have the same type species, Termopsis
procerus Heer, 1849, and it is proposed that this problem of synonymy be resolved by
designation of Termopsis bremii Heer, 1849 as the type species of Termopsis.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Isoptera; TERMOPSIDAE; Termopsis; Miotermes;
Termopsis bremii; Termopsis procerus; termites.

1. Heer (1849, p. 23) named the termite genus Termopsis (at that time as a subgenus
of Termes Linnaeus, 1758) and included five new fossil species, two of which were
Termopsis bremii Heer, 1849 (p. 31) and T. procerus Heer, 1849 (p. 23), in Middle
Eocene Baltic amber. Heer did not select any of the five species as the type species of
Termopsis. Holmgren (1911, p. 35) established the family-group name TERMOPSINAE
based on Termopsis.

2. Handlirsch (1907, p. 698) designated Termopsis procerus Heer, 1849 as the type
species of Termopsis and was the first author to explicitly designate a type species
from one of Heer’s originally included five species. Cockerell (1916, p. 138) also
claimed to have designated T. procerus as the type of Termopsis.

3. Banks (in Banks & Snyder, 1920, p. 9) selected Termopsis insignis Heer, 1849 as
the type species of Termopsis but, although he correctly chose one of Heer’s original
species, his action was not valid since Handlirsch (1907, p. 698) had already
designated T. procerus as the type species.

4. Hagen (1854, p. 222) included only Termopsis bremii Heer in Termopsis,
transferring four of Heer’s original five species to the genus Hodotermes Hagen, 1853.
Later, Hagen (in Pictet-Baraban & Hagen, 1856, p. 51; 1858a, p. 32 and 1858b, p. 12)
again included only T. bremii of Heer’s original five species in Termopsis. Although

120 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003

Hagen never specifically mentioned 7. bremii as the type species of Termopsis, his
elimination of all species except T. bremii was interpreted later by Emerson (1933,
p. 165) as the fixation of a type species. Article 69.4 states that ‘elimination of all but
one of the originally included nominal species from a nominal genus or subgenus
does not in itself constitute type fixation’. Had Handlirsch (1907) not already
designated T. procerus Heer, 1849 as the type species of Termopsis (and had Banks
(1920) not chosen T. insignis), Emerson’s (1933, p. 165) subsequent acceptance of
T. bremii as the type species of Termopsis would have been valid under Article 69.1.1.
This Article states that ‘in the absence of a prior type fixation for a nominal genus or
subgenus, an author is deemed to have designated one of the originally included
nominal species as type species, if he or she states (for whatever reason, right or
wrong) that it is the type or type species’.

5. Girard (1879, p. 270) selected T. angusticollis Hagen, 1858a as the type species
of Termopsis. Similarly, Wasmann (1897, p. 149) selected Termes occidentis Walker,
1853 as the type species of Termopsis. Since neither T. angusticollis nor T. occidentis
was originally included in Termopsis by Heer (1849), these designations are invalid
under Article 67.2.

6. Rosen (1913, p. 325) described a new termite genus Miotermes, with T. procerus
Heer, 1849 as the type species by original designation and monotypy and transferred
the species to the family MASTOTERMITIDAE, a family proposed by Desneux (1904) for
the primitive Australian termite Mastotermes darwiniensis Froggatt, 1897 (see
Opinion 1808, 1995, BZN 52: 206).

7. However, Snyder (1949, p. 360), in a catalog of the termite species of the world,
followed Emerson’s (1933) conclusion concerning Hagen’s various actions (1854,
1856, 1858a, 1858b) and listed 7. bremii as the type species of Termopsis.

8. All authors since Snyder (1949) have followed the invalid interpretation of
Emerson (1933) and have considered Termopsis to apply to T. bremii and related
species. They have employed the family-group name TERMoPSIDAE Holmgren, 1911
(p. 35) for Termopsis (sensu current usage) and its relatives in an extensive systematic
(e.g., Wilson, 1971; Thorne & Carpenter, 1992; Nel & Paicheler, 1993; Weitschat &
Wichard, 1998, 2002; Krishna & Grimaldi, 2000; Thorne, Grimaldi, & Krishna,
2000), biological (Weidner, 1955; Stuart, 1963, 1969; Krishna, 1969; Howse, 1970;
Roonwal, 1970; Watson & Gay, 1991; Thorne et al., 1993; Kambhampati &
Eggleton, 2000), and agricultural (Harris, 1971; Lee & Wood, 1971; Scheffrahn & Su,
1992: Su & Scheffrahn, 2000) literature.

9. As T. procerus is the valid type species of both the genus Termopsis Heer, 1849
and the genus Miotermes Rosen, 1913, the name Termopsis (family TERMOPSIDAE) 1S
formally a senior objective synonym of Miotermes (family MASTOTERMITIDAE).

10. Acceptance of this situation would be detrimental to the stability of termite
nomenclature as all the species presently included in Miotermes would have to be
transferred into the genus Termopsis and a new name would be needed for the genus
that would include the species that had been included in Termopsis. The next
available name is Yestotermopsis Rosen, 1913, a name that is currently considered to
be a junior synonym of Termopsis. There would also be confusing complications
associated with the family names TERMOPSIDAE and MASTOTERMITIDAE, as Termopsis 1s
the type genus of TERMOPSIDAE. The name TERMOPSIDAE Holmgren, 1911 would
become a junior synonym of MASTOTERMITIDAE Desneux, 1904 and a substitute name

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 121

would be needed for the family currently known as TERMOPSIDAE. The name
STOLOTERMITINAE Holmgren, 1911 (p. 45) (currently used for a subfamily of
TERMOPSIDAE) would be available, but its introduction at family rank would be
confusing.
11. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1s accordingly
asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to set aside all previous fixations of type species for the
nominal genus Termopsis Heer, 1849 and to designate Termopsis bremii Heer,
1849 as type species;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) Termopsis Heer, 1849 (gender: masculine), type species by designation in
(1) above Termopsis bremii Heer, 1849;
(b) Miotermes Rosen, 1913 (gender: masculine), type species by original
designation and monotypy Termopsis procerus Heer, 1849;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) bremii Heer, 1849, as published in the binomen Termopsis bremii (specific
name of the type species of Termopsis Heer, 1849):
(b) procerus Heer, 1849, as published in the binomen Termopsis procerus
(specific name of the type species of Miotermes Rosen, 1913):
(4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name
TERMOPSIDAE Holmgren, 1911 (type genus Termopsis Heer, 1849).

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to V. Krishna and C.D. Michener for carefully reading earlier
drafts of this petition and providing valuable commentary. This work was sup-
ported by a grant from the National Science Foundation, U.S.A. (DEB-9870097 to
K. Krishna and D.A. Grimaldi).

References

Banks, N. & Snyder, T.E. 1920. A revision of the Nearctic termites, with notes on biology and
geographic distribution. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 108: 1-228.
Cockerell, T.D.A. 1916. Insects in Burmese amber. American Journal of Science, 42: 135-138.
Emerson, A.E. 1933. A revision of the genera of fossil and recent Termopsinae (Isoptera).
University of California Publications in Entomology, 6: 165-195.

Girard, M. 1879. Les Insectes. Traité élementaire d’entomologie . . ., vol. 2. 1028 pp. Bailliére,
Paris.

Hagen, H. 1854. Ueber die Neuropteren der Bernsteinfauna. Verhandlungen des Zoologisch-
botanischen Vereins in Wien, 4: 221-232.

Hagen, H. 1858a. Monographie der Termiten. Linnaea Entomologica, 12: 1-342.

Hagen, H. 1858b. Catalogue of the specimens of Neuropterous insects in the collection of the
British Museum, Part I. Termitina. 34 pp. British Museum, London.

Handlirsch, A. 1907. Die Fossilen Insekten und die Phylogenie der Rezenten Formen: Ein
Handbuch fiir Paldontologen und Zoologen. Pp. 641-1120. Engelmann, Leipzig.

Harris, W.V. 1971. Termites: their recognition and control. xiii, 186 pp. Longmans, London.

Heer, O. 1849. Die Insektenfauna der Tertidrgebilde von Oeningen und von Radoboj in Croatien.
Zweiter Theil: Heuschrecken, Florfliegen, Aderfliigler, Schmetterlinge und Fliegen. 264 pp.,
17 pls. Engelmann, Leipzig.

Holmgren, N. 1911. Termitenstudien: 2. Systematik der Termiten. Die Familien Mastoter-
mitidae, Protermitidae und Mesotermitidae. Kungliga Svenska Vetenskaps-Akademiens
Handlingar, 46(6): 1-88.

122 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003

Howse, P.E. 1970. Termites: a study in social behaviour. 150 pp. Hutchinson University
Library, London.

Kambhampati, S. & Eggleton, P. 2000. Taxonomy and phylogeny of termites. Pp. 1-23 in Abe,
T., Bignell, D.E. & Higashi, M. (Eds.), Termites: evolution, sociality, symbioses, ecology.
Xxil, 466 pp. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

Krishna, K, 1969. Introduction. Pp. 1-17 in Krishna, K. & Weesner, F.M. (Eds.), Biology of
termites, vol. 1. xill, 598 pp. Academic Press, New York.

Krishna, K. & Grimaldi, D. 2000. A new subfamily, genus, and species of termite (Isoptera)
from New Jersey Cretaceous amber. Pp. 133-140 in Grimaldi, D. (Ed.), Studies on Fossils
in Amber, with Particular Reference to the Cretaceous of New Jersey. viii, 498 pp.
Backhuys, Leiden.

Lee, K.E. & Wood, T.G. 1971. Termites and soils. x, 251 pp. Academic Press, London.

Nel, A. & Paicheler, J.-C. 1993. Les Isoptera fossiles. Etat actuel connaissances, implications
paléoécologiques et paléoclimatologiques [Insecta, Dictyoptera]. Pp. 103-179 in Nel, A.,
Martinez-Délclos, X. & Paicheler, J.-C., Essai de Révision des Aeschinioidea [ Insecta,
Odonata, Anisoptera] | Les Isoptera Fossiles [Insecta, Dictyoptera]. 179 pp. CNRS
Editions [Cahiers de Paléontologie], Paris.

Pictet-Baraban, F.J. & Hagen, H. 1856. Die im Bernstein befindlichen Neuropteran der
Vorwelt. Pp. 41-126 in Berendt, G.C. (Ed.), Die im Bernstein befindlichen organischen
Reste der Vorwelt, vol. 2. [2], 126 pp., 8 pls. Nicolaischen Buchhandlung, Berlin.

Roonwal, M.L. 1970. Termites of the Oriental region. Pp. 315-391 im Krishna, K. & Weesner,
FM. (Eds.), Biology of Termites, vol. 2. xiv, [1], 643 pp. Academic Press, London.

Rosen, K. von. 1913. Die fossilen Termiten: eine kurze Zusammenfassung der bis jetzt
bekannten Funde. Transactions of the Second International Congress of Entomology,
Oxford 1912, 2: 318-335.

Scheffrahn, R.H. & Su, N.-Y. 1992. Comparative toxicity of methyl bromide against ten
Nearctic termite species (Isoptera: Termopsidae, Kalotermitidae, Rhinotermitidae).
Journal of Economic Entomology, 85: 845-847.

Snyder, T.E. 1949. Catalog of the termites (Isoptera) of the world. Smithsonian Miscellaneous
Collections, 112: 1-490.

Stuart, A.M. 1963. Studies on the communication of alarm in the termite Zoofermopsis
nevadensis (Hagen), Isoptera. Physiological Zoology, 36: 85—96.

Stuart, A.M. 1969. Social behavior and communication. Pp. 193-232 in Krishna, K. &
Weesner, F.M. (Eds.), Biology of Termites, vol. 1. xiii, 598 pp. Academic Press, New
York.

Su, N.-Y. & Scheffrahn, R-H. 2000. Termites as pests of buildings. Pp. 437-453 in Abe, T..,
Bignell, D.E. & Higashi, M. (Eds.), Termites: Evolution, Sociality, Symbioses, Ecology.
xxil, 466 pp. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

Thorne, B.L. & Carpenter, J.M. 1992. Phylogeny of the Dictyoptera. Systematic Entomology,
17: 253-268. ;

Thorne, B.L., Grimaldi, D.A. & Krishna, K. 2000. Early fossil history of the termites. Pp. 77-93
in Abe, T., Bignell, D.E. & Higashi, M. (Eds.), Termites: evolution, sociality, symbioses,
ecology. xxii, 466 pp. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

Thorne, B.L., Haverty, M.I., Page, M. & Nutting, W.L. 1993. Distribution and biogeography
of the North American termite genus Zootermopsis (Isoptera: Termopsidae). Annals of the
Entomological Society of America, 86: 532-544.

Wasmann, E. 1897. Termiten von Madagaskar und Ostafrika. Abhandlungen der Senckenberg-
ischen Naturforschenden Gesellschaft, 21: 137-182.

Watson, J.A.L. & Gay, F.J. 1991. Isoptera (termites). Pp. 330-347 in Naumann, I.D. (Ed.), The
insects of Australia: a textbook for students and research workers [vol. 1]. xvi, [1], 542 pp.
Cornell University Press, Ithaca.

Weidner, H. 1955. Korperbau, Systematik und Verbreitung der Termiten. Pp. 5—81 in Schmidt,
H. (Ed.), Die Termiten: Ihre Erkennungsmerkmale und wirtschaftliche Bedeutung. 309 pp.
Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft Geest und Portig, Leipzig.

Weitschat, W. & Wichard, W. 1998. Atlas der Pflanzen und Tiere im Baltischen Bernstein.
256 pp. Friedrich Pfeil, Munich.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 123

Weitschat, W. & Wichard, W. 2002. Atlas of plants and animals in Baltic Amber. 256 pp.
Friedrich Pfeil, Munich.

Wilson, E.O. 1971. The insect societies. x, [1], 548 pp. Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
U.S.A.

Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 59: 161.

Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).

Termopsis bremii Heer, 1849 in Baltic Amber.

124 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003

Case 3257

Acmaeodera oaxacae Fisher, 1949 and Polycesta deserticola Barr,
1974 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed precedence of the specific names
over those of Acmaeodera philippinensis Obenberger, 1924 and
Polycesta aruensis Obenberger, 1924 respectively

C.L. Bellamy

Plant Pest Diagnostics Lab., California Department of Food & Agriculture,
3294 Meadowview Road, Sacramento, California 95832, U.S.A.
(e-mail: cbellamy@cdfa.ca.gov)

R.L. Westcott

Plant Division, Oregon Department of Agriculture, Salem, Oregon 97310,
U.S.A. (e-mail: rwestcot@oda.state.or.us)

Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 23.9.3 and 81.2.3 of the
Code, is to conserve the specific names Acmaeodera oaxacae Fisher, 1949 and
Polycesta deserticola Barr, 1974 for two species of jewel beetle (family BUPRESTIDAE)
by giving them precedence over their respective little-used and poorly defined senior
synonyms: Acmaeodera philippinensis Obenberger, 1924 and Polycesta aruensis
Obenberger, 1924. The subjective synonymy of A. philippinensis and A. oaxacae is
published here for the first time.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; BUPRESTIDAE; Acmaeodera oaxacae;:
Polycesta deserticola; Acmaeodera philippinensis; Polycesta aruensis; jewel beetles.

1. Obenberger (1924) described two species of jewel beetle (family BUPRESTIDAE)
from specimens in Prague and named them Acmaeodera philippinensis (p. 94) from
‘Philippines’ (an evidently wrong locality) and Polycesta aruensis (p. 100) from ‘Ins.
Aru (Aru Island, Indonesia; also a wrong locality). Each species was represented by
a single specimen. Later, both of these nominal species were listed in the Buprestidae
I fascicle of the Coleopterorum Catalogus compiled by Obenberger (1926, pp. 42, 84).

2. Fisher (1949, p. 340) described Acmaeodera oaxacae from “Tehuantepec,
Oaxaca, Mexico’, basing his name on a series of ten specimens. Additional notes
and comments on the distribution and biology of this species have been made by
Westcott et al. (1979, p. 176; 1990, p. 222) and Hespenheide (1996, p. 235). The
species is common and is now known to be distributed in Mexico from Oaxaca to
Sonora.

3. Barr (1974, p. 6) described Polycesta deserticola from a long series of specimens
from a wide range in southern California and Arizona. The species was long known
(since LeConte, 1860) in the U.S.A. as P. velasco auctorum and Barr’s description of
P. deserticola restricted P. velasco Gory & Laporte, 1838, which is in fact an
unrelated species, to Mexico. Notes about distribution and biology of P. deserticola

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 125

have been made by Nelson (1980, p. 94), Cobos (1981, p. 63), Bellamy (1982, p. 360),
Westcott (1991, p. 78) and Nelson et al. (1996, p. 190). P. deserticola is also known
to occur in Mexican localities throughout Baja California and in Sonora.

4. Volkovitsh (1984, p. 559) published a discussion about A. philippinensis and
concluded that the unique type specimen was mislabeled and belongs to the 4.
bivulnera Horn, 1894 species group (of which A. oaxacae is a member) that is only
known from North America, in particular the southwestern United States and
Mexico.

5. Bily & Bellamy (1996, p. 182) synonymized P. deserticola under P. aruensis after
noting that the handwritten label on the type specimen of P. aruensis had apparently
been misread by Obenberger (1924, p. 100) who wrongly assumed its type locality to
be Aru Island (see para. | above). Bily & Bellamy (1996) interpreted ‘Ariz’ to mean
Arizona rather than Aru Island.

6. One of us (C.L.B.) has compared the type specimens of A. philippinensis and
A. oaxacae and finds them to be conspecific. This synonymy is published here for the
first time.

7. As neither of the older names in these two synonymies is based on a
specimen with correct locality data, and since neither of these specific names
reflects the real distribution of these species or has had appreciable usage, we
believe that the respective younger taxon names should be given precedence over
the misleading senior names whenever the pairs of names are considered to be
synonyms.

8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to use its plenary power:

(a) to give the specific name oaxacae Fisher, 1949, as published in the binomen
Acmaeodera oaxacae, precedence over the name philippinensis Obenberger,
1924, as published in the binomen Acmaeodera philippinensis, whenever the
two are considered to be synonyms;

(b) to give the specific name deserticola Barr, 1974, as published in the binomen
Polycesta deserticola, precedence over the name aruensis Obenberger, 1924,
as published in the binomen Polycesta aruensis, whenever the two are
considered to be synonyms;

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following

names:

(a) oaxacae Fisher, 1949, as published in the binomen Acmaeodera oaxacae,
with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the name
philippinensis Obenberger, 1924, as published in the binomen Acmaeodera
philippinensis, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms;

(b) deserticola Barr, 1974, as published in the binomen Polycesta deserticola,
with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the name
aruensis Obenberger, 1924, as published in the binomen Polycesta aruensis,
whenever the two are considered to be synonyms;

(c) philippinensis Obenberger, 1924, as published in the binomen Acmaeodera
Philippinensis, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over
the name oaxacae Fisher, 1949, as published in the binomen Acmaeodera
oaxacae, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms;

126 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003

(d) aruensis Obenberger, 1924, as published in the binomen Polycesta aruensis,
with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the name
deserticola Barr, 1974, as published in the binomen Polycesta deserticola,
whenever the two are considered to be synonyms.

References

Barr, W.F. 1974. New genera and species of North American Buprestidae (Coleoptera).
Occasional Papers, Biological Society of Nevada, 39: \—13.

Bellamy, C.L. 1982. Observations on the biology and distribution of several species of
Buprestidae (Coleoptera). Coleopterists’ Bulletin, 36(2): 358-361.

Bily, S. & Bellamy, C.L. 1996. New synonymy in North American Polycesta Solier.
Coleopterists’ Bulletin, 50(2): 182.

Cobos, A. 1981. Ensayo sobre los géneros de la subfamilia Polycestinae (Coleoptera,
Buprestidae) (Parte II). EOS, Revista Espanola de Entomologia, 55—56(1979-1980): 23-94.

Fisher, W.S. 1949. New buprestid beetles from Mexico, Central and South America and the
West Indies. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, No. 3240, 99: 327-351.

Hespenheide, H.A. 1996. Chrysomelidae of the subfamily Clytrinae as models for mimicry
complexes. Pp. 227-239 in Jolivet, P.H.A. & Cox, M.L. (Eds.), Chrysomelidae Biology,
vol. 2. S.P.B. Academic Publishing, Amsterdam..

LeConte, J.L. 1860. Revision of the Buprestidae of the United States. Transactions of the
American Philosophical Society, (2)11(.1859): 187-258.

Nelson, G.H. 1980. Nomenclatural changes in the family Buprestidae with descriptions of
previously unknown sexes (Coleoptera). Pan-Pacific Entomologist, 56(2): 81-97.

Nelson, G.H., Westcott, R.L. & MacRae, T.C. 1996. Miscellaneous notes on Buprestidae and
Schizopodidae occurring in the United States and Canada, including descriptions of
previously unknown sexes of six Agrilus Curtis species. Coleopterists’ Bulletin, 50(2):
183-191.

Obenberger, J. 1924. De Buprestidarum speciebus novis (Diagnoses praeliminares). Nove
druhy éeledi krascu. Acta Entomologica Musaei Nationalis Pragae, 2: 93-115.

Obenberger, J. 1926. Buprestidae 1. Pp. 1-212 im Junk, W. & Schlenkling, S. (Eds.),
Coleopterorum Catalogus, 84. Junk, Berlin.

Volkovitsh, M.G. 1984. Novyi rod zlatok triby Acmaeoderini (Coleoptera, Buprestidae) iz
Yugo-Vostochnoi Azii 1 taksonomicheskoye polozheniye Acmaeodera_ philippinensis
Obenberger. Entomologicheskoe Obozrenie, 63(3): 556-560.

Westcott, R.L. 1991. Distributional, biological, and taxonomic notes on North American
Buprestidae. Insecta Mundi, 4(1-4)(1990): 73-89.

Westcott, R.L., Atkinson, T., Hespenheide, H.A. & Nelson, G.H. 1990. New country and state
records, and other notes for Mexican Buprestidae (Coleoptera). Insecta Mundi,
3(3)(1989): 217-232.

Westcott, R.L., Barr, W.F., Nelson, G.H. & Verity, D.S. 1979. Distributional and biological
notes on North and Central American species of Acmaeodera (Coleoptera: Buprestidae).
Coleopterists’ Bulletin, 33(2): 169-181.

Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 59: 234.

Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 127

Case 3254

Aphodius niger Mliger, 1798 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed
conservation of the specific name

Frank-Thorsten Krell

Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road,
London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: F.Krell@nhm.ac.uk)

Darren J. Mann

Hope Entomological Collections, Oxford University Museum of Natural
History, Parks Road, Oxford OXI 3PW, U.K.
(e-mail: darren.mann@oum.oxford.ac.uk)

Robert B. Angus

School of Biological Sciences, Royal Holloway, University of London,
Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX, U.K. (e-mail: R.Angus@rhul.ac.uk)

Jason F. Maté

Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road,
London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: jfmate@hotmail.com)

Abstract. The purpose of this application, in relation to Articles 57.3.1 and 59.1 of the
Code, is to conserve the specific name Aphodius niger Uliger, 1798 for a widely
distributed and endangered species of European dung beetle. At present, this nominal
species is invalidly referred to as Scarabaeus niger Panzer, 1797 (currently Aphodius
niger (Panzer, 1797), a senior secondary homonym of Aphodius niger Illiger, 1798). It
is proposed that Aphodius niger Iliger, 1798 be conserved by suppression of the name
Scarabaeus niger Panzer, 1797. Panzer’s actual species is considered to be conspecific
with Aphodius granarius (Linnaeus, 1767) or Aphodius varians Duftschmid, 1805, but
not with Aphodius niger Mliger, 1798. A lectotype for Aphodius niger Iliger, 1798 is
designated.

Keywords. Nomenclature; Coleoptera; SCARABAEIDAE; Aphodius; Aphodius niger; dung
beetle; endangered species; British Red Data Book; U.K. Biodiversity Action Plan;
Europe.

1. Panzer (1797, p. 1) described and named Scarabaeus niger, a species of scarab
beetle (family scARABAEIDAE). As far as we know there is no extant type material
(Eisinger, 1919; Horn et al., 1990, p. 295). At present, this name (which is currently
used in the combination Aphodius (Liothorax) niger (Panzer, 1797)) is incorrectly
applied (see para. 2 below) to a widespread species of European beetle that is
localized within its distribution range. This invalid name (see para. 4 below) is used
in all current works on European APHODIINAE (APHODIIDAE) (e.g. Paulian, 1959, p. 171;

128 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003

Dellacasa, 1983, p. 281; Jessop, 1986, p. 24; Krell & Fery, 1992, p. 234; Baraud, 1992.
p. 195; Bunalski, 1999, p. 103) and in the world catalogue of APHoDIIDAE by Dellacasa
(1986, p. 232). It is listed as ‘endangered’ (RDB 1) in the British Red Data Book
(Shirt, 1987, p. 176) and is the subject of a Biodiversity Action Plan (Anonymous,
1995, p. 123).

2. Adam (1994, p. 6) thought that the name S. niger Panzer, 1797 was being
misapplied as the species currently referred to as Aphodius (Liothorax) niger (Panzer,
1797) did not match the description of the species named Scarabaeus niger by Panzer
in 1797. Adam suggested the species originally named S. niger by Panzer (1797) was
in fact conspecific with Aphodius varians Duftschmid, 1805. In our, opinion, Adam’s
interpretation of S. niger Panzer is probably incorrect. However, Creutzer (1799,
p. 20) correctly synonymized S. niger Panzer with S. granarius Linnaeus, 1767
(currently Aphodius granarius (Linnaeus, 1767)). This synonymy has been overlooked
by all subsequent authors (e.g. Dellacasa, 1986, p. 382), because Creutzer’s comments
on Panzer’s species were erroneously cited as the description of a new species
‘Aphodius niger Creutzer, 1799’ by Schénherr, 1806 (p. 77), Dellacasa, 1986 (p. 168)
and others.

3. Adam (1994, p. 6) also noted that the name Scarabaeus niger Panzer, 1797 was
in fact a junior primary homonym of Scarabaeus niger Giorna, 1791 (a nomen
oblitum for an unidentified species of the subfamily CETONIINAE). As a result, it could
not be used as the valid name for Aphodius varians. To avoid the homonymy, he
redescribed the species that had been named Scarabaeus niger Panzer, 1797 and
named it Aphodius muscorum. This replacement name has not gained wide recog-
nition in the current literature (not even in the Hungarian literature, see Sar, 1998,
p. 205; Nadai & Merkl, 1999, p. 218). Only Adam himself (1996, p. 305; 1998, p. 263)
and Bordat (1999, p. 81) have used this new name (in the combination Liothorax
muscorum).

4. Illiger (1798, p. 24) described a scarab beetle from Sweden and various parts of
Germany and named it Aphodius niger, erroneously referring to Scarabaeus niger
Panzer, 1797. Evidently, Illiger thought he was redescribing S. niger Panzer and not
a new species. However, Illiger’s beetle species is clearly not that described by Panzer,
and is easily recognizable as a member of the subgenus Liothorax Motschulsky, 1859,
and as the endangered species currently and invalidly known as Aphodius (Liothorax)
niger (Panzer, 1797). According to Horn et al. (1990, p. 183), Illiger’s type material
has been deposited partly in the Museum fiir Naturkunde, Berlin, and partly in the
Staatliches Naturhistorisches Museum Braunschweig. In Braunschweig, no material
of A. niger with labels matching Illiger’s handwriting was found (J. Hevers, curator,
pers. comm., 27 June 2001).

5. We have inspected the specimens labelled Aphodius niger from the historic
collection in Berlin and they are all the species currently known as Aphodius
(Liothorax) niger (Panzer, 1797). There are seven specimens in the series, which has
the reference number 25810. This is a printed label attached to the first specimen, but
duplicated by the Museum on all the other specimens. The series name-label is pinned
to the first specimen (a female), and its data are written in three rows, in dark brown
ink. The first row reads ‘niger’, the second “Pz Gyl’, later altered in black ink, with
the “Pz’ crossed out and ‘Ill’ added, and an asterisk (*) added after “Gyl.”. The third
row reads ‘Sc. Terrestris Pz’. These data match those used by IIliger in his published

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 129

description of Aphodius niger. The labelled female specimen lacks locality data, as do
three of the other specimens. One specimen has a handwritten label ‘Austria’ (not
given as a locality in Illiger’s description of A. niger), and there are two males with
handwritten labels ‘Suec’. These Swedish specimens are the only ones whose locality
is mentioned in Illiger’s description, and therefore the only specimens that can be
unambiguously identified as syntypes. To ensure that the type material matches the
type locality of Illiger’s description and thus to avoid any future nomenclatural or
taxonomic confusion, we herewith designate one of the Swedish specimens from this
series as the lectotype, and have labelled it as such. The other specimen from Sweden
has been labelled as the paralectotype.

6. Since Illiger (1798) published the specific name niger in combination with
Aphodius rather than Scarabaeus, his name is not a junior primary homonym of
S. niger Panzer, 1797 (or of the nomen oblitum S. niger Giorna, 1791). However, it
is a junior secondary homonym of Aphodius (Liothorax) niger (Panzer, 1797); see
Articles 57.3.1 and 59.1. To ensure permanent clarification of the confusion this
could cause, we propose suppression of the name Scarabaeus niger Panzer, 1797. The
species to which Panzer actually applied this name already has the senior synonym
Aphodius granarius (Linnaeus, 1767). In addition, suppression of Scarabaeus niger
Panzer, 1797 will also provide protection for later names if these are considered to be
synonyms of Panzer’s name as has occurred for Aphodius varians Duftschmid, 1805.

7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:

(1) to use its plenary power to suppress the name niger Panzer, 1797, as published
in the binomen Scarabaeus niger, for the purposes of both the Principle of
Priority and the Principle of Homonymy;

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name niger
Illiger, 1798, as published in the binomen Apodius niger and as defined by the
lectotype designated in para. 5 above:

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in
Zoology the name niger Panzer, 1797, as published in the binomen Scarabaeus
niger and as suppressed in (1) above.

References

Adam, L. 1994. A check-list of the Hungarian Scarabaeoidea with the description of ten new

_ taxa. Folia entomologica Hungarica, 55: 5—17.

Adam, L. 1996. Scarabaeoidea (Coleoptera) of the Bukk National Park. Pp. 299-308 in
Mahunka, S. (Ed.), The Fauna of the Biikk National Park I. Hungarian Natural History

_ Museum, Budapest.

Adam, L. 1998. Bogarak Kerecsendr6él (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae, Scarabaeoidea). Folia
Historico Naturalia Musei Matraensis, 22: 257-264.

Anonymous. 1995. Biodiversity: The UK Steering Group Report. 2: Action Plans. 324 pp.
H.M.S.O., London.

Baraud, J. 1992. Coléoptéres Scarabaeoidea d’Europe. Faune de France, 78: 1-856.

Bordat, P. 1999. Les Aphodiens rares de la faune de France. Le Coléoptériste, 36: 23-29.

Bunalski, M. 1999. Die Blatthornkdfer Mitteleuropas. Coleoptera, Scarabaeoidea,
Bestimmung — Verbreitung — Okologie. 80 pp. Slamka, Bratislava.

Creutzer, C. 1799. Entomologische Versuche. 152 pp., 1 pl. Schaumburg, Wien.

Dellacasa, G. 1983. Sistematica e nomenclatura degli Aphodiini italiani (Coleoptera
Scarabaeidae: Aphodiinae). Monografie Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali Torino, 1:
1-465.

130 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003

Dellacasa, M. 1986. Contribution to a world-wide catalogue of Aegialiidae, Aphodiidae,
Aulonocnemidae, Termitotrogidae (Coleoptera, Scarabaeoidea). Memorie della Societa
Entomologica Italiana, 66: 1-456.

Duftschmid, C. 1805. Fauna Austriae, oder Beschreibung der Gsterreichischen Insecten fiir
angehende Freunde der Entomologie, vol. 1. 311 pp. Linz & Leipzig.

Eisinger, F. 1919. Georg Wolfgang Panzer 1755-1829. Internationale Entomologische
Zeitschrift, 13: 89-92.

Giorna, M.E. 1791. Calendario entomologico ossia osservazioni sulla stagioni proprie agl insetti
nel clima piemontese, e particolarmente ne’contorni di Torino. 146 pp. Stamperia Reale,
Torino.

Horn, W., Kahle, I., Friese, G. & Gaedike, R. 1990. Collectiones entomologicae. Ein Kompen-
dium tiber den Verbleib entomologischer Sammlungen der Welt bis 1960, 2 volumes. 573 pp.
Akademie der Landwirtschaftswissenschaften der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik,
Berlin.

Illiger, J.K.W. 1798. Verzeichniss der Kafer Preussens. Entworfen von Johann Gottlieb Kugelann
Apotheker in Osterode. 510 pp. Gebauer, Halle.

Jessop, L. 1986. Dung beetles and chafers. Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea. Handbooks for the
identification of British insects, 5(11): 1-53.

Krell, F.-T. & Fery, H. 1992. Familienreihe Lamellicornia. Pp. 201—252 in Lohse, G.A. &
Lucht, W.H. (Eds.), Die Kafer Mitteleuropas, vol. 13 (2. Supplementband mit Katalog-
teil). Goecke & Evers, Krefeld. .

Linnaeus, C. 1767. Systema Naturae per Regna tria Naturae, secundum classes, ordines, genera,
species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis. (Ed. 12). 1327 pp. Holmiae.
Nadai, L. & Merkl, O. 1999. Scarabaeoidea (Coleoptera) from the Aggtelek National Park.
Pp. 215-220 in Mahunka, S. (Ed.), The fauna of the Aggtelek National Park I. Hungarian

Natural History Museum, Budapest.

Panzer, G.W.F. 1797. Fauna Insectorum Germaniae initia oder Deutschlands Insecten. 37.
Norimbergiae.

Paulian, R. 1959. Coléoptéres Scarabeides. Faune de France, 63: 1-298.

Sar, J. 1998. Vizsgalatok a Drava mente lemeszescsapu bogar (Coleoptera, Lamellicornia)
faunajan I. Dunantuli Dolgozatok (A) Természettudomanyi Sorozat, 9: 203-207.

Schonherr, C.J. 1806. Synonymia insectorum .. ., vol. 1, pt. 2. xx, 294 pp., 2 pls. Nordstrém,
Stockholm.

Shirt, D.B. (Ed.). 1987. British Red Data Books. 2. Insects. 402 pp. Nature Conservancy
Council, Peterborough.

Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 60: 1.

Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 131

Aphodius niger Mliger, 1798 Hortobagy [Hungary] NP. Ujszentmargita margital erdo fuhalozva 1974.v.28
leg. Vasarhelyi [labelled ‘Aphodius muscorum Adam/Det. Adam, 19847] Actual length: 5 mm.
Drawing by Jason F. Mate.

132 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003

Case 3194

Lius Deyrolle, 1865 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation

C.L. Bellamy

Plant Pest Diagnostics Branch, California Department of Food &
Agriculture, 3294 Meadowview Road, Sacramento, California 95832, U.S.A.
(e-mail: cbellamy@cdfa.ca.gov)

Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to
conserve the generic name Lius Deyrolle, 1865 for a group of jewel beetles (family
BUPRESTIDAE) by suppressing its unused senior primary homonym Lius Chevrolat, 1838.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; BUPRESTIDAE; Lius; Lius ignitus:
buprestids; jewel beetles.

1. Dejean (1833, p. 83) used the beetle generic name Lius, which he attributed to
‘Eschscholtz’ without a date. He gave no description of the genus, but included seven
specific names. However, these are all nomina nuda, and so the name Lius Dejean is
not available from this work. Dejean (1833) also introduced the beetle generic name
Brachys (p. 83) without description but included Trachys tessellata Fabricius, 1801
and four nomina nuda. Thus Brachys is an available name under Article 12.2.5 of the
Code and T. tessellata is the type species by monotypy. In the same year, Solier (1833,
p. 312) provided a description for Brachys and listed Trachys tessellata as the only
included species.

2. In 1838 (p. 104), Chevrolat used the generic name Lius for a new nominal
species, Lius deplanatus (a jewel beetle; family BUPRESTIDAE). Saunders (1871, p. 135)
transferred L. deplanatus Chevrolat, 1838 to Pachyschelus Solier, 1833 (the type
species by monotypy is Pachyschelus scutellatus Soler, 1833), thus treating Lius
Chevrolat, 1838 as a junior subjective synonym of Pachyschelus.

3. Deyrolle (1865, p. 219) used the name Lius in a key and attributed three nominal
buprestid species to it in a footnote as ‘types du genre: Br. ignitus, aculeatus, exiguus,
etc. Gory’.

4. Cobos (1979, p. 425) subsequently designated Brachys ignitus Gory & Laporte,
1840 (p. 6) as the type species of. Lius Deyrolle, 1865.

5. All authors subsequent to Deyrolle’s (1865) diagnosis of Lius have attributed
authorship of this name to Deyrolle including Waterhouse (1889, p. 135); Kerremans
(1892, p. 294; 1893, p. 122; 1903, p. 321); Obenberger (1937, p. 1345); Blackwelder
(1944, p. 338); Bellamy (1985, p. 428) and Holynski (1993, p. 15).

6. Although the name Lius Deyrolle, 1865 is a junior homonym of Lius as used by
Chevrolat (1838), the name has not been used in its earlier sense because Lius
Chevrolat, 1838 is a junior synonym of Pachyschelus Solier, 1833. As Lius Chevrolat,
1838 has not been used since 1899, it qualifies as a nomen oblitum under Article
23.9.1.1. The name Lius Deyrolle, 1865 has been in considerable use for Brachys
ignitus Gory & Laporte, 1840 and related species (see para. 5 above). Despite this, the

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 133

name has not had sufficient usage to allow its ‘automatic’ conservation under Article
23.9.2. So this case is brought to the Commission under the provision of Article
W393).

7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:

(1) to use its plenary power to suppress the generic name Lius Chevrolat, 1838 for
the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Lius
Deyrolle, 1865 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent designation by
Cobos (1979) Brachys ignitus Gory & Laporte, 1840:

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name ignitus
Gory & Laporte, 1840, as published in the binomen Brachys ignitus (specific
name of the type species of Lius Deyrolle, 1865):

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in
Zoology the name Lius Chevrolat, 1838, as suppressed in (1) above.

References

Bellamy, C.L. 1985. A catalogue of the higher taxa of the family Buprestidae (Coleoptera).
Navorsinge van die Nasionale Museum, Bloemfontein, 4(15): 405-472.

Blackwelder, R.E. 1944. Checklist of the coleopterous insects of Mexico, Central America, the
West Indies, and South America, pt. 2. United States National Museum, Bulletin, 185: iv.
189-341.

Chevrolat, L.A.A. 1838. Centurie de Buprestides. Revue Entomologique, 5: 41-110.

Cobos, A. 1979. Revision de la subfamilia Trachyinae a niveles supraespecificos (Coleoptera,
Buprestidae). Acta Entomologica Bohemoslovaca, 76: 414-430.

Dejean, P.F.M.A. 1833. Catalogue de la collection de Coléoptéres de M. Le Comte Dejean,
livraison 1. 96 pp. Méquignon-Marvis, Paris.

Deyrolle, H. 1865. Description des Buprestides de la Malaisie recueillés par M. Wallace.
Annales de la Société Entomologique de Belgique, 8: 1-312.

Gory, H.L. & Laporte, F.L.N. de C. 1840. Histoire naturelle et iconographie des insectes
Coléoptéres. Monographie des buprestides, vol. 2 (genera paged separately). Dumeril, Paris.

Holyfski, R. 1993. A reassessment of the internal classification of the Buprestidae Leach
(Coleoptera). Crystal, series Zoologica, 1: 142.

Kerremans, C. 1892. Catalogue synonymique des Buprestides decrits de 1758 a 1890. Mémoires
de la Société Entomologique de Belgique, 1: 1-304.

Kerremans, C. 1893. Essai de groupement des Buprestides. Annales de la Société Entomologique
de Belgique, 37: 94-122.

Kerremans, C. 1903. Coleoptera, Fam. Buprestidae. Pp. 49-338 in Wytsman, P. (Ed.), Genera
Insectorum, Fasc. 12b; 12c; 12d. Verteneuil & Desmet, Bruxelles.

Obenberger, J. 1937. Buprestidae 6 in Junk. W & Schenkling, S. (Eds.), Coleopterorum
Catalogus, 157: 1247-1714.

Saunders, E. 1871. Catalogus Buprestidarum Synonymicus et Systematicus. 171 pp. Janson, London.

Solier, A.J.J. 1833. Essai sur les Buprestides. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France,
2: 261-316.

Waterhouse, C.O. 1889. Insecta, Coleoptera, Buprestidae. Pp. 49-193 in: Biologia Centrali
Americana, vol. 3, pt. 1.

Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 58: 78.

Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin: they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary. I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).

134 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003

Fig. 2. Pachyschelus signatus Waterhouse, 1889.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 135

Case 3230

Colobodus Agassiz, 1844 (Osteichthyes, Perleidiformes): proposed
designation of C. bassanii de Alessandri, 1910 as the type species,
with designation of a neotype

Raoul J. Mutter

Department of Biological Sciences and Laboratory for Vertebrate
Paleontology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2E9 Canada
(e-mail: rmutter@ualberta.ca)

Abstract. The purpose of this application, which relates to Chapter 15 of the Code,
is to set aside all previous type fixations for the fossil fish genus Colobodus Agassiz,
1844 and to designate Colobodus bassanii de Alessandri, 1910 as the type species. The
nominal species Colobodus bassanii is the best representative of the characteristics of
the genus Colobodus. A neotype is designated for Colobodus bassanii under Article
75.3 of the Code.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Osteichthyes; Perleidiformes; fossil fish; Co/o-
bodus; Colobodus bassanii; Middle Triassic; Besano Formation; Italy; Switzerland.

1. Agassiz (1833-1844, p. 237; for the exact year of publication (1844) see
Woodward & Sherborn, 1890, pp. xxv-xxix) described a new genus and new species
of fossil fish in the name Colobodus hogardi. C. hogardi is therefore the type species
of Colobodus by monotypy (p. 237). The description was made from a single
crushing-teeth battery of an unidentified bone, but the bone was not figured. The
tooth plate’s outline is diamond-shaped; its teeth are striated and topped by a central
wart. The specimen originates from the Upper Muschelkalk of Lunéville (France;
Middle Triassic).

2. The name C. hogardi has been quoted, listed or mentioned, but rarely applied
(e.g. Giebel, 1847, vol. 1, p. 181; 1853, vol. 2, p. 325 and Woodward, 1895, p. 69).
Only Dames (1888, vol. 4, pp. 159-160) has applied the name, but without giving
explicit reference to similar specimens in any collection. It appears that in 1967 the
C. hogardi holotype was destroyed by a fire on the third floor of the Department of
Palaeontology and Geology (EOST) at the Louis Pasteur University of Strasbourg
(J.-C. Gall, Strasbourg, pers. comm., 2000).

3. In 1910, de Alessandri described well-preserved fish remains from the Besano
Formation (Lombardy, Italian/Swiss border; Middle Triassic; Grenzbitumenzone) of
the Monte San Giorgio/Besano basin, and thereby established the new species
Colobodus bassanii. From de Alessandri’s (1910, p. 76) description, the crushing teeth
are morphologically identical with C. hogardi Agassiz. De Alessandri introduced the
new species Colobodus bassanii based on several specimens, four of them figured,
displaying characters of head, fins, dentition and scales. These details greatly widened
our knowledge of the genus Colobodus (see de Alessandri, 1910, pp. 74-81; table 2,
fig. 4; table 3, figs. 1-3).

136 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003

4. In all representative works (e.g. Andersson, 1916; Beltan, 1972: Nybelin, 1977;
Orvig, 1978: Biirgin, 1996 and Cartanya, 1999), C. bassanii has subsequently been
regarded as the most completely preserved and best known nominal species of the
genus Colobodus. | am currently revising the family CoLoBODONTIDAE Andersson,
1916.

5. The type material of Colobodus bassanii de Alessandri, 1910 was probably
destroyed during the second World War (1943) in the Museo Civico di Storia
Naturale in Milano (A. Tintori, Milano, pers. comm., 1998). However, large-scale
excavations in the last century (see Kuhn-Schnyder, 1974) have yielded well-
preserved and relatively complete specimens of C. bassanii. Most of these are now
stored at The Natural History Museum, London (in the “Carl Bender’ collection) and
at the Palaontologisches Institut und Museum der Universitat Zurich.

6. As the original type material of Colobodus bassanii de Alessandri, 1910 has been
destroyed, I herewith designate a neotype for this nominal species in accord with
Article 75.3.4. According to Article 75.3.6, the neotype should, if possible, come
from the same geological horizon as the original name-bearing type. The Middle
Triassic Besano Formation site where de Alessandri found his holotype specimen
of C. bassanii (see para. 3) has provided other specimens of this species from the
same stratigraphical context. I designate the comparatively fully preserved specimen
T 4843 from this locality (and now held in the collection of the Palaontologisches
Institut und Museum der Universitat Ziirich) as the neotype for Colobodus bassanii
de Alessandri, 1910.

7. The type material for the nominal species Colobodus hogardi Agassiz, 1844 has
been destroyed, no additional well-preserved material has been found and the name
has not been widely used. In addition, the characteristics of the genus Colobodus
Agassiz, 1844, as currently understood, are better represented by the nominal species
Colobodus bassanii de Alessandri, 1910 than by the nominal species Colobodus
hogardi Agassiz, 1844. As a result I propose that, in the interests of maintaining the
current understanding of the name Colobodus Agassiz, 1844, Colobodus bassanii de
Alessandri, 1910 should be designated as its type species in place of Colobodus
hogardi Agassiz, 1844.

8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked: ;

(1) to use its plenary power to set aside all previous type fixations for the nominal
genus Colobodus Agassiz, 1844, and to designate Colobodus bassanii de
Alessandri, 1910 as the type species;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Colobodus
Agassiz, 1844 (gender: masculine), type species by designation in (1) above and
as defined by the neotype designated in para. 6 above Colobodus bassanii de
Alessandri, 1910;
to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name bassanii de
Alessandri, 1910, as published in the binomen Colobodus bassanii (specific
name of the type species of Colobodus Agassiz, 1844).

(3

ma

Acknowledgements
I thank Peter Forey (The Natural History Museum, London), Andrew Wakeham-
Dawson (ICZN) and Mark Wilson (University of Alberta, Edmonton) for their help

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 i 137

and comments on this case. Research and publication were supported by a NSERC
grant to MVH Wilson and SNF grant 81ZH-68466 to RJ Mutter.

References

Agassiz, J.L.R. 1833-1844. Recherches sur les poissons fossiles, vol. 2, pt. 2, L'histoire de
l' Ordre des Ganoides. xii, 338 pp. Neuchatel & Soleure, Switzerland.

Alessandri, G.D. de. 1910. Studi sui pesci triasici della Lombardia. Memorie della Societa
Italiana di Scienze Naturali e del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Milano, 7(1): 1-147.

Andersson, E. (= E. A:son Stensi6). 1916. Uber einige Trias-Fische aus der Cava Trefontane,
Tessin. Bulletin of the Geological Institutions of the University of Uppsala, 15: 13-33.

Beltan, L. 1972. La faune ichthyologique du Muschelkalk de la Catalogne. Memorias de la
Real Academia de Ciencias y Artes de Barcelona, 41(10): 281-325.

Biirgin, T. 1996. Diversity in the feeding apparatus of perleidid fishes (Actinopterygii) from the
Middle Triassic of Monte San Giorgio. Pp. 555-565 in Arratia, G. & Viohl, G. (Eds.),
Mesozoic fishes — systematics and paleoecology. 575 pp. Verlag Dr. Friedrich Pfeil,
Munchen.

Cartanya, J. 1999. An overview of the Middle Triassic actinopterygians from Alcover,
Mont-ral and El Pinetell (Catalonia, Spain). Pp. 535—S51 in Arratia, G. & Schultze, H.-P.
(Eds.), Mesozoic fishes 2 — systematics and fossil record. 604 pp. Verlag Dr. Friedrich
Pfeil, Miinchen.

Dames, W. 1888. Die Ganoiden des deutschen Muschelkalks. Palaeontologische Abhandlungen,
4(2): 133-180.

Giebel, C.G. 1847. Fauna der Vorwelt. 467 pp. Brockhaus, Leipzig.

Giebel, C.G. 1853. Uber die Synonymie seines Colobodus varius. Zeitschrift ftir die Gesammten
Naturwissenschaften, 2(11): 325-327.

Kuhn-Schnyder, E. 1974. Die Triasfauna der Tessiner Kalkalpen. Newjahrsblatt der Naturfor-
schenden Gesellschaft in Ziirich, 176: 1-119.

Nybelin, O. 1977. Studies on Triassic Fishes from East Greenland HI. On Helmolepis gracilis
Stensid. Meddelelser om Gronland, 2001(2): 1-13.

Orvig, T. 1978. Microstructure and growth of the dermal skeleton in fossil Actinopterygian
fishes: Nephrotus and Colobodus, with remarks on the dentition in other forms. Zoologica
Scripta, 7: 33-56.

Woodward, A.S. 1895. Catalogue of the fossil fishes in the British Museum (Natural History),
vol. 3. 544 pp. London.

Woodward, A.S. & Sherborn, C.D. 1890. 4 catalogue of British fossil Vertebrata. xxxv, 396 pp.
Dulau, London.

Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 59: 69.

Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).

138 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003

Case 3226

Lacepéde, B.G.E. de la V., 1788, Histoire Naturelle des Quadrupédes
Ovipares: proposed rejection as a non-binominal work

Jay M. Savage
Department of Biology, San Diego State University, San Diego,
California 92182-4614, U.S.A. (e-mail: savy 1@cox.net)

Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 11.4 of the Code, is to ensure
nomenclatural stability by suppression of Lacepéde’s (1788) work Histoire Naturelle
des Quadrupédes Ovipares (and all subsequent editions of this work) as an unavail-
able, non-binominal work.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Lacepéde; Histoire Naturelle des Quadrupédes
Ovipares et des Serpens.

1. In 1788-89, Count Bernard Germain Etienne de la Ville Lacepéde published a
two volume work entitled Histoire Naturelle des Quadrupédes Ovipares et des Serpens.
These two volumes were the last two in Buffon’s (1749-67; 1774-89) monumental and
best-selling Histoire Naturelle Générale et Particuliére. Lacepede’s first volume
(1788a) deals with the egg-laying quadrupeds (Quadrupédes Ovipares) and the second
volume (1789) deals with the serpents (Serpens). A later, smaller format edition of
Lacepede’s work appeared as the final volumes (1788b, 1790) of another edition
of Buffon’s Histoire Naturelle.

2. Buffon and his associates, including Lacepede, did not accept or use the
Linnaean binominal system (see Stresemann, 1975, pp. 56, 94; Roger, 1997, pp.
311-312), although some of Lacepéde’s Latinized French vernacular names were
employed by later authors. In particular, Bonnaterre (1789-90) gave most of
Lacepeéde’s taxa binominal names if an older binominal was not already available. In
fact, Bonnaterre scooped Buffon and hk associates by being the first in France to use
binominal (Linnaean) names for many groups of animals.

3. Brongersma (1972; BZN 29: 44-61) in an application to the Commission
demonstrated that Lacepéde’s Histoire Naturelle des Serpens was not consistently
binominal and proposed that it be ruled an unavailable work. Subsequently in 1987
(Opinion 1463; BZN 44: 265-267), the Commission suppressed this work and its later
editions, while conserving the long-established name Crotalus piscivorous Lacepede,
1789 (currently Agkistrodon piscivorous) notwithstanding that it was published in an
unavailable work. However, the status of Lacepeéde’s first volume (Histoire Naturelle
des Quadrupédes Ovipares) was not addressed.

4. The situation with the Histoire Naturelle des Quadrupédes Ovipares is exactly
parallel to that in the Histoire Naturelle des Serpens. All the names used in the text
are in the vernacular, although binominal names of other authors (principally
Linnaeus) are listed in the bibliographic footnote accompanying many species
descriptions. Latin names are also used in the foldout table, labeled Synopsis
Meéthodica Quadrupedum Oviparum (between pages 618 and 619 near the end of the

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 139

volume). These names correspond to those presented in the foldout Table Méthodique
Quadrupédes des Ovipares located just before page | in the text. In the Table, the
vernacular French or names in other languages used in the text are listed. In the
Synopsis, the French vernacular names are translated into Latin (e.g., T.[ortue]
Chagrinee becomes T.[estudo] punctata) but those derived from the common names
of other languages are retained (e.g. ‘Le Mabouya’ becomes Mabouya).

5. Verification of these facts and those in the next paragraph is based on
examination of four copies of Lacepéde (1788a, 1789), two at the L.M. Klauber
Library (San Diego Natural History Museum), one at the Allan Hancock Founda-
tion Library (University of Southern California) and my personal copy. These copies
differ slightly in the placement of the Table Méthodique and Synopsis. The page
numbers given above are from my copy. I also know of one copy at the University
of Michigan that lacks the Synopsis. This was apparently removed a considerable
time after publication. I have also examined a copy of Lacepéde (1788b, 1790) in the
L.M. Klauber library whose contents do not differ from that of the quarto edition.

6. Although five columns in the Synopsis are headed by the term ‘Genus’, the
names ‘Testudo’, ‘Lacertus’, ‘Rana’, ‘Hyla’ and ‘Buffo’ stand as translations of
French vernacular names. Two additional columns lack genus headings and contain
one species name each, “B. Canaliculatus’ and ‘Sheltopusik’. In the columns,
uninominal, binominal and trinominal names are listed depending upon the language
of the vernacular used in the body of this work. Those derived from the French are
preceded by an abbreviation T., B., R., H. or B.; those from other languages are
uninominal. In the genus ‘Testudo’, there are 19 binominal, 4 uninominal and one
trinominal species names. For the genus ‘Lacertus’, there are 29 binominal names, 25
uninominals and one trinominal. For ‘Rana’, there are 11 binominals and one
uninominal: for ‘Hyla’ six binominals and a trinominal; for “Buffo’ 12 binominals and
four uninominals. It is clear from these data that, as in the Serpens volume, Lacepéde
did not consistently use a binominal nomenclatural system in his Quadrupédes
Ovipares. Mayer & Lazell (2000) have recently reached the same conclusion. Thus,
Lacepéde (1788a) should join Lacepéde (1789) as works rejected for nomenclatural
purposes.

7. Buffon’s original Histoire Naturelle series was enormously popular and many
editions (the ‘Suites 4 Buffon’), often duplicated in quarto, octavo or smaller format
sets, and translated into other European languages (e.g. Bechstein, 1800-1802;
Lacepéde, 1802) appeared every decade until at least 1885. I have found reference to
at least 15 different editions containing Lacepéde’s names. I have not seen copies of
all these and there are probably several more. The later versions do not pose any
nomenclatural threat to other species names because of Bonnaterre’s (1789-1790)
actions. Nevertheless, rejection of Lacepéde’s 1788a work, and all later editions of
this work, promotes universality and stability since it would prevent attempts to
preoccupy such generic names as Lacertus and Buffo in zoological nomenclature.

8. Just as in the case of the Histoire Naturelle des Serpens, a number of Lacepede’s
Latinized vernacular names from Histoire Naturelle des Quadrupédes Ovipares have
been adopted as valid from as far back as Gray (1831). Fortunately, suppression of
the Histoire Naturelle des Quadrupédes Ovipares does not affect these names as all
were given proper binominals based on Lacepéde’s names in Bonnaterre’s
(1789-1790) binominal work.

140 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003

9. The names in question in para. 8 are (in the order they appear in Lacepede’s
work):
Testudo terrapen Bonnaterre, 1789, p. 30 (currently Trachemys terrapen)
Testudo subrubra Bonnaterre, 1789, p. 27 (currently Kinosternon subrubra)
Testudo punctata Bonnaterre, 1789, p. 30 (currently Lissemys punctata)
Testudo subrufa Bonnaterre, 1789, p. 28 (currently Pelomedusa subrufa)
Testudo subnigra Lacepéde in Bonnaterre, 1789, p. 30 (currently Pelusios subniger;
see Opinion 1534; BZN 46: 81-82; 1989)
Lacerta mabouya Bonnaterre, 1789, p. 51 (currently Mabuya mabouya)
Lacerta roquet Bonnaterre, 1789, p. 54 (currently Anolis or Dactyloa roquet)
Salamandra terdigitata Bonnaterre, 1789, p. 64 (currently Salamandrina terdigitata).
10. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to rule that the work entitled Histoire Naturelle des
Quadrupédes Ovipares by Lacepéde (1788), and any subsequent editions of this
work, are not available for nomenclatural purposes, and that no name acquires
the status of availability by reason of having been published in any of them;
(2) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological
Nomenclature the work entitled Histoire Naturelle des Quadrupédes Ovipares by
Lacepéde (1788) and all subsequent editions of this work, as ruled in (1) above.

References

Bechstein, J.M. 1800-1802. Herrn De la Cepede’s Naturgeschichte . . ., 5 vols. 2027 pp.,
167 pls. Industrie-Comptoir, Weimar.

Bonnaterre, P.-J.A. 1789. Erpétologie. xxviii, 71 pp. Panckoucke Lib., Paris.

Bonnaterre, P.-J.A. 1790. Ophiologie. In Tableau Encyclopédique et Méthodique des Trois
Régnes de la Nature . . . xliv, 76 pp. Panckoucke Lib., Paris.

Gray, J.E. 1831. A synopsis of the species of the class Reptilia. Jn Griffith, E. & Pidgeon, E.
(Eds.), The Animal Kingdom, vol. 9. The Class Reptilia, Appendix. 110 pp. Whittaker,
Teacher, London.

Lacepéde, B.G.E. de la V. 1788a. Histoire Naturelle de Quadrupédes Ovipares et des Serpens,
vol. 1. 17, 651 pp. Imp. Roi, Hotel de Thou., Paris (quarto).

Lacepéde, B.G.E. de la V. 1788b. Histoire Naturelle de Quadrupédes Ovipares et des Serpens,
pt. 1. 60, 359 pp.; pt. 2. iv, 461 pp. Acad. Roy., Hotel de Thou., Paris (duodecimo).
Lacepede, B.G.E. de la V. 1789. Histoire Naturelle de Quadrupédes Ovipares et des Serpens,

vol. 2. 9, 20, 144, 527 pp. Acad. Roy., Hotel de Thou., Paris (quarto).

Lacepéde, B.G.E. de la V. 1790. Histoire Naturelle de Quadrupédes Ovipares et des Serpens,
pt. 3. 24, 432 pp.; pt 4. 8, 408 pp. Acad. Roy., Hotel de Thou., Paris (duodecimo).
Lacepéde, B.G.E. de la V. 1802. The Natural History of Oviparous Quadrupeds and Serpents.
Arranged and translated by R. Kerr. pt. 1, 420 pp.; pt. 2, 345 pp.; pt. 3, 383 pp.: pt. 4,

382 pp. Cadel & Davis, London.

Mayer, G.C. & Lazell, J. 2000. A new species of Mabuya (Sauria: Scincidae) from the British
Virgin Islands. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 113(4): 871-886.

Roger, J. 1997. Buffon. 492 pp. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Stresemann, E. 1975. Ornithology from Aristotle to the present. 432 pp. Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, MA.

Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 59: 2.

Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 141

Draft proposal to emend the Code with respect to trace fossils: request for comments

Markus Bertling'*, Simon Braddy~, Richard G. Bromley’, Georges D. Demathieu",
Radek Mikulas°, Jan K. Nielsen®, Andrew K. Rindsberg’, Michael Schlirf® and
Alfred Uchman? (Addresses on p. 142)

The Code covers not only names for biological taxa but those for the ‘fossilized
work of organisms (ichnotaxa)’ as well (Article 1.2.1). In ichnology, an ichnotaxon is
considered to be the name attached to a trace fossil (e.g. Bromley, 1990; Magwood,
1992; Pickerill, 1994)—a term that is used ambiguously in the Code’s Glossary only
for ‘fossilized trails, tracks or burrows’. In fact, many other biogenic structures are
trace fossils as well and the obsolete term ‘work of an animal’ is not used in modern
ichnologic literature. This contribution aims at a future clarification of the meaning
of the term ‘ichnotaxa’ and the meaning of the terms used for related taxa that are
frequently confused with ichnotaxa.

A trace fossil may generally be defined as a morphologically recurrent structure
resulting from the life activity of an individual organism (or a monospecific group of
organisms) that modifies the substrate (e.g. Bromley, 1996). This means that
‘fossilized work of organisms’ in which a substrate is not modified qualifies neither as
a trace fossil nor as an ichnotaxon. Fossil eggs and plant galls are the work of
animals, but are not trace fossils. Secretions produced by organisms are not trace
fossils. It follows that such ‘work of animals’, e.g. spider webs, cocoons, pupal cases,
pearls and calculi, likewise, are not trace fossils. As representatives of most of these
groups have received names governed by the Code, they are currently classified in a
parataxonomic scheme. Trace fossils, on the other hand, are not objects of
parataxonomy; ichnotaxa do not compete in priority with names for their producers
(Article 23.7.3). Some other structures that are occasionally listed as trace fossils, e.g.
stromatolites, pathologic structures and soils as well as signs of human technology,
are neither ichnotaxa nor the ‘fossilized work of an organism’ and should not be
covered by the Code.

This discussion underlines the discrepancy in the terminology of the Code as
opposed to the one generally used in the relevant scientific subdiscipline. This
discrepancy may result in misunderstandings and contradictory claims about the
legal standing of names established for biogenic structures that are not trace fossils.
For this reason we propose refinement of the wording of the Code and the use of less
ambiguous terms to distinguish between various animal products and true trace
fossils. We propose that the Glossary definition of ‘work of an animal’ be emended
to read: ‘trace fossils (including burrows, borings and etchings, tracks and trackways,
coprolites, gastroliths, regurgitaliths, nests, leaf mines, bite and gnaw structures), as
well as secretions such as eggs, cocoons, pupal cases, spider webs, embedment
structures and plant galls’. With this definition, it will not be necessary to replace the
term ‘work of an animal in Articles 1.2.1, 10.5, 12.2.8 and 72.5.1 by ‘trace fossils’.

An additional point independent of the above proposal relates to the nomencla-
tural treatment of ichnofamilies. It is illogical to demand criteria for their establish-
ment that differ from those for other ichnotaxa. Also, with ichnotaxa being treated
in very much the same way as biological taxa, we recommend that the principle of
typification be extended to the naming of ichnofamilies. This would be consistent

142 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003

with the current provisions for the typification of ichnogenera and ichnospecies
(Articles 13.3.3, 42.2.1 and 42.3.2).

In addition, we propose the deletion of an unnecessary sentence dealing with
ichnotaxa based on recent traces (Article 1.3.6). This article allows usage of ichnotaxa
erected on recent traces prior to 1931, but there seem to be no grounds for this
provision. We are not aware of any case where names based on recent traces are
actually used. If they had been validly established they would no longer be available
due to their status of nomina oblita, anyway.

Finally, numerous new ichnotaxa have been established in the last decades by their
authors using the abbreviations ‘igen.’ for ichnogenus and ‘isp.’ for ichnospecies. We
advocate that ‘igen.’ and ‘isp.’ be approved as the legitimate abbreviations for
ichnogenus and ichnospecies, respectively, for use in open nomenclature and for the
designation of new ichnotaxa. In relation to this, Recommendation 16A of the Code
should be emended to include reference to ‘igen. n.’, ‘isp. n.’, etc. for ichnotaxa.

Comments on this draft proposal are invited and should be sent to the Executive
Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London
SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).

References

Bromley, R.G. 1990. Trace fossils: biology and taphonomy. 280 pp. Unwin Hyman, London.

Bromley, R.G. 1996. Trace fossils. biology, taphonomy and applications. 361 pp. Chapman &
Hall, London. 3

Magwood, J.P.A. 1992. Ichnotaxonomy: a burrow by any other name? Pp. 15—33 in Maples,
C.G. & West, R.R. (Eds.), Trace Fossils. Palaeontological Society Short Courses in
Palaeontology, 5.

Pickerill, R.K. 1994. Nomenclature and taxonomy of invertebrate trace fossils. Pp. 3-42 in
Donovan, S.K. (Ed.), The palaeobiology of trace fossils. Johns Hopkins University Press,
Baltimore.

(1) Geological and Palaeontological Institute, University of Miinster, Corrensstr. 24,
D-48149 Miinster, Germany (*corresponding author).

(2) Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol BSS IRJ, U.K.

(3) Geological Institute, Oster Voldgade 10, DK-1350 Copenhagen K, Denmark.

(4) Earth Sciences Centre, University of Burgundy, 6 boulevard Gabriel, F-21 100
Dijon, France.

(5) Institute of Geology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Rozvojova 135,
CZ-16500 Praha 6, Czech Republic.

(6) Geological Museum, Oster Voldgade 5-7, DK-1350 Copenhagen K, Denmark.

(7) Geological Survey of Alabama, P.O. Box 869999, Tuscaloosa, AL 35486-6999,
U.S.A.

(8) Institute for Palaeontology, Pleicherwall 1, D-97070 Wiirzburg, Germany.

(9) Institute of Geological Sciences, Jagiellonian University, ul. Oleandry 2a,
PL-30 063 Krakow, Poland.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 143

Comments on the neotypification of Protists, especially Ciliates (Protozoa,
Ciliophora)
(General Article; see BZN 59: 165-169; 60: 48-49)

(1) Jean Dragesco
394 Boulevard du Grand Devois, F-34980 Saint-Clement-de- Riviere, France

I fully support Wilhelm Foissner’s proposal that the neotypes of protists, especially
Ciliates, should be freed from the type locality regulation of Article 75.3.6 of the
Code, provided that neotypification is based on a thorough redescription of the
organisms and usable neotype material has been deposited in an acknowledged
repository.

(2) Khaled A.S. AL-Rasheid

Zoology Department, College of Science, King Saud University, P.O. Box 2455,
Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia

I support Wilhelm Foissner’s proposal that the neotypes of protists, especially
Ciliates, should be freed from the type locality regulation of Article 75.3.6 of the
Code, as it is not applicable to protists.

Comments on the proposed conservation of Cyphosoma Mannerheim, 1837 and
proposed precedence of Halecia Laporte & Gory, 1837 over Pristiptera Dejean, 1833
(Insecta, Coleoptera)

(Case 3205; see BZN 59: 249-252)

(1) Vladimir Sakalian
Institute of Zoology, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1 Tzar Osvoboditel Blvd,
1000 Sofia, Bulgaria

I support this application, as it will ensure nomenclatural stability.

(2) Roman B. Holynski
PL-05822 Milanowek, ul. Graniczna 35, skr. poczt. 65, Poland

I do not support this application. I do not approve of junior names being given
precedence over senior names. In the cases of Cyphonota and Pristiptera there is no
justification for setting aside the Principle of Priority and for conserving errors by
giving precedence to junior synonyms. Consequently, I ask the Commission to reject
the application.

144 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003

Comment on the proposed precedence of Aegorhinus Erichson, 1834 (Insecta,
Coleoptera) over Psuchocephalus Latreille, 1828
(Case 3214; see BZN 59: 253-255)

M.A. Alonso-Zarazaga

Depto. de Biodiversidad y Biologia Evolutiva, Museo Nacional de Ciencias
Naturales-CSIC, José Gutiérrez Abascal 2, E-28006 Madrid, Spain

C.H.C. Lyal

Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road,
London SW7 SBD, U.K.

We fully support the application presented by our colleagues M. Elgueta and
G. Kuschel to give precedence to Aegorhinus Erichson, 1834 over Psuchocephalus
Latreille, 1828, being subjective synonyms. When we published our Catalogue
(Alonso-Zarazaga & Lyal, 1999), we knew the existence of Article 23.9.1 of the then
forthcoming 4th Edition of the Code, but at that time we could not find the number
of records required to meet the requirements of Article 23.9.1.2, so we opted for
Priority.

We have already stated our agreement with Kuschel & Elgueta (Alonso-Zarazaga
& Lyal, 2002, p. 22) and endorse the exact terms of this application.

Additional reference
Alonso-Zarazaga, M.A. & Lyal, C.H.C. 2002. Addenda and corrigenda to 4 World Catalogue
of Families and Genera of Curculionoidea (Insecta: Coleoptera). Zootaxa, 63: 1-37.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 145

Nomenclatural note

The authorship and dates of Pieter Cramer’s De Uitlandsche Kapellen:
a request for comments from lepidopterists

J.E. Chainey

Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road,
London SW7 SBD, U.K.

In 1958 (Opinion 516), the Commission approved a set of dates and authorship for
De Uitlandsche Kapellen by Pieter Cramer (this work was completed by Caspar Stoll
after Cramer’s death). However, several facts have come to light that might have
influenced the Commission’s ruling had they been noted at the time. In addition,
authors are not always following the Opinion, particularly with regard to the
authorship of this work.

(1) The main purpose of Opinion 516 was to assign relative precedence to five
publications issued in 1775. Cramer’s work was deemed to have been published on
December 31st and come last in precedence because there was no evidence of when
it had been published, other than the year 1775. However, a letter (held in The
Natural History Museum, London) from the entomologist Dru Drury (1725-1803)
to the publisher Sepp dated 27 November 1775 states that “Cramer’s work is badly
coloured’, indicating that at least the first part was then available. This date would
give Cramer (1775) precedence over Denis & Schiffermiiller (1775), which Opinion
516 stated as having been published on 8 December.

(2) The publication dates given in Opinion 516 are partly based on the assertion
that Cramer died in 1780. In particular, the publication date of volume 3, part 22, was
set at 1780 (instead of 1779 as given on the original wrappers of a copy held in the
library of The Natural History Museum, London), because a footnote by Stoll on
p. 107 refers to the death of Cramer. However, Cramer died in September 1776, as
noted by Stoll (1780) and Smit, Sanders & van der Veer (1986).

(3) Dos Passos (1958) states that the dates and spellings of the specific names in De
Uitlandsche Kapellen should be taken from the indexes, since these are the only part of
the work that is consistently binominal. Subsequent authors have ignored the dates
suggested by Dos Passos and, in any case, the dates he cites for the publication of the
indexes do not agree with the above-mentioned copy with its original wrappers. Based
on these wrappers, the correct dates for the indexes for each volume are 1776 (vol. 1),
1777 (vol. 2), 1780 (vol. 3) and 1782 (vol. 4). However, some authors have accepted the
spellings of names as given in the indexes for the reason cited by Dos Passos.

(4) Acceptance of the indexes as the valid source of the names in De Uitlandsche
Kapellen would also affect authorship. The whole of volume 4 would be attributable
to Stoll, and almost certainly also volume 3. In an announcement of his forthcoming
work on Cicadas, Stoll (1780) discusses progress with De Uitlandsche Kapellen and
states: ‘mais le nombre des Planches étant porté a présent a 360, don’t 264 [1.e. up to
volume 3, part 22] ont déja vu le jour’. Since the published arrangement and sequence
of the figures differ from the original plates, it seems unlikely that Cramer’s plans
would have been sufficiently advanced for him to have prepared the index to volume 3.

146 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003

Although there are continuing inconsistencies in the citation of this work, it is
considered that the stability of dates and authorship are best served by application of
Opinion 516, and this is here recommended as the best course of action. It is also
recommended that the spellings of Cramer’s names follow the indexes, since these are
conformed to by current usage (and in most cases there is no difference between
spellings in the indexes and the main text). However, comments are invited from
lepidopterists on whether or not a case should be made to take account of any of the
above points. Acceptance of any of the first three points could affect the priority of
some names, though point 2 applies to relatively few taxa. Points 3 and 4 should be
taken together, and acceptance would rule out either points | or 2.

References

Cramer, P. 1775-80. De Uitlandsche Kapellen voorkomende in de drie Waereld-deelen Asia,
Africa en America. [Papillons exotique des trois parties de Monde I'Asie, l'Afrique et
l’ Amerique. ] 1. Pp. 1-132, pls. I-XCVI, 2: Pp. 1-152, pls. XCVII-CXCII, 3. Pp. 1-176, pls.
CXCHI-CCLXXXVIII, 4. Pp. 1-28, pls. CCLXXXIX-CCCIV. S.J. Baalde,
Amsterdam; B. Wild, Utrecht.

Denis, J.N.C.M. & Schiffermiiller, I. 1775. Anktindung [sic] eines systematisches Werken von den
Schmetterlinge der Wienergegend. 322 pp. Wien.

Dos Passos, C.F. 1958. The dates and authorships of some names proposed by Cramer and
Stoll in De Uitlandsche Kapellen voorkomende in de drie Waereld-deelen Asia, Africa en
America, and by Stoll alone in Aanhangel van het werk, de Uitlandsche Kapellen,
voorkomende in de drie Waereld-deelen Asia, Africa en America, door den heere Pieter
Cramer [1775 ]-1791. Lepidopterist’s News, 12: 195-198.

Smit, P., Sanders, A.P.M. & van der Veer, J.P.F. 1986. Hendrik Engel’s alphabetical list
of Dutch zoological cabinets and menageries. Niewwe Nederlandse budragen tot de
Geschiedenis der Geneeskunde en der Natuurwetenschappen, 19: \—340.

Stoll, C. 1780-82. De Uitlandsche Kapellen voorkomende in de drie Waereld-deelen Asia, Africa
en America. [ Papillons exotique des trois parties de Monde I’ Asie, l'Afrique et I Amerique ].
Vol. 4: 1-252, pls. CCCV-CCCC. S.J. Baalde, Amsterdam; B. Wild, Utrecht.

Stoll, C. 1780. Natuurlyke en naar’t leeven naauwkeurig gekleurde afbeeldingen en beschryvingen
der Cicaden en Wantzen, in alle vier waerelds deelen Europe, Asia, Africa en America.
[Représentation exactement colorée d’aprés nature des Cigales et des Punaises, qui se
trouvant dans les quatre parties du monde, I’ Europe, I Asie, | Afrique et l Amerique. ] \2 pp.
Jan Christian Sepp, Amsterdam. F

Comments on this note are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin: they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 3 147

OPINION 2031 (Case 2710)

CLAVIDAE McCrady, 1859 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa) and CLAVINAE Casey,
1904 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposal to remove the homonymy not
approved

Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the homonymy between CLAVIDAE
McCrady, 1859 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa) and CLAVINAE Casey, 1904 (Mollusca,
Gastropoda) should not be removed. It had been proposed that the gastropod name
should be emended to CLAvuSINAE by changing the stem of the type genus Clavus de
Montfort, 1810 from cLAv- to cLAvus-. However, the Commission rejected this
proposal because DRILLIINAE Olsson, 1964, the next available synonym for the
gastropod name, provided a satisfactory alternative that was already being widely
used instead of CLAvINAE for this group of gastropods. No names are placed on
Official Lists or Indexes.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; CLAVIDAE; CLAVINAE; Clava; Clavus; Hydrozoa;
Gastropoda.

Ruling
(1) Proposals put forward to remove the homonymy between CLAvIDAE McCrady,
1859 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa) and CLAVINAE Casey, 1904 (Mollusca, Gastropoda)
by the emendation of the stem of the molluscan type genus Clavus de
Montfort, 1810 from cLAv- to CLAVUS- were not approved.

History of Case 2710

An application to remove the homonymy between cLAviDAE McCrady, 1859
(Cnidaria, Hydrozoa) and cLAvINAE Casey, 1904 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) was
received from Walter O. Cernohorsky (Farm Cove, Pakuranga, Auckland, New
Zealand), Paul F.S. Cornelius (Department of Zoology, The Natural History Museum,
London, U.K.) and Alexander V. Sysoev (Laboratory of Helminthology, Russian
Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia) on 7 February 1989. After correspondence the
case was published in BZN 48: 192-195 (September 1991). Notice of the case was sent
to appropriate journals.

Comments opposing the application were published in BZN 49: 144-145 and 49:
222-223. Comments in support of the application were published in BZN 49: 223 and
50: 52. Confirmation of the date of the relevant pages of John McCrady’s hydrozoan
paper Gymnopthalmata of Charleston Harbor was published in BZN 49: 287-289.

Those who opposed the alteration of the molluscan name to CLAVUSINAE Casey,
1904 did so in the confidence that DRILLIINAE Olsson, 1964 is a synonym of CLAVINAE
Casey. If further research proves these taxa to be ‘biologically and taxonomically
distinct’ (a possibility mentioned in para. 6 of the original application), there would
be a reason for establishing a replacement name for CLAVINAE Casey, because it is a
junior homonym of cLAviDAE McCrady.

148 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003

Conservation of CLAVUSINAE Casey, 1904 would make it a senior synonym of
DRILLIINAE and this would cause confusion because DRILLIINAE 1s already in common
usage for this group of gastropods (e.g. Taylor, Kantor & Sysoev, 1993, Bulletin of
the Natural History Museum, London (Zoology), 59(2): 163).

Decision of the Commission

On 1 December 2002 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on
the proposals published in BZN 48: 193-194. At the close of the voting period on
1 March 2003 the votes were as follows: 3 Commissioners (Alonso-Zarazaga, Fortey
and Macpherson) voted FOR the proposals, 19 Commissioners voted AGAINST,
Bohme and Kerzhner abstained, no vote was received from Mahnert, Ng was on
leave of absence.

No names are placed on Official Lists or Indexes and the issue is left open for
subsequent workers to follow the precepts of the Code or to make new proposals to
the Commission.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 149

OPINION 2032 (Case 3148)

CLARIDAE Kutikova, Markevich & Spiridonov, 1990 (Rotifera): spelling
emended to CLARIAIDAE SO removing homonymy with CLARIIDAE
Bonaparte, 1846 (Osteichthyes, Siluriformes)

Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the homonymy between the family-group
names CLARIIDAE Kutikova, Markevich & Spiridonoy, 1990 (Rotifera) and CLARIDAE
Bonaparte, 1846 (Osteichthyes) is removed by emending the spelling of the rotifer
family-group name by adopting the full genus name as the stem, giving the
corresponding family-group name CLARIAIDAE Kutikova, Markevich & Spiridonov,
1990. The fish name CLARIDAE Bonaparte, 1846 remains unchanged.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Rotifera; Osteichthyes; CLARIAIDAE; CLARIIDAE;
Claria; Clarias; rotifers; air breathing (labyrinth) catfishes.

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that for the purposes of Article 29.1
of the Code the stem of the generic name Claria Kutikova, Markevich &
Spiridonov, 1990 is CLARIA-.

(2) The name Claria Kutikova, Markevich & Spiridonov, 1990 (gender: feminine),
type species by monotypy Claria segmentata Kutikova, Markevich &
Spiridonoyv, 1990 is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology (Rotifera).

(3) The name segmentata Kutikova, Markevich & Spiridonov, 1990, as published
in the binomen Claria segmentata (specific name of the type species of Claria
Kutikova, Markevich & Spiridonov, 1990), is hereby placed on the Official List
of Specific Names in Zoology (Rotifera).

(4) The name CLARIAIDAE Kutikova, Markevich & Spiridonov, 1990, type genus
Claria Kutikova, Markevich & Spiridonov, 1990 (spelling emended by the
ruling in (1) above), is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group
Names in Zoology (Rotifera).

(5) The name cLarmpAE Kutikova, Markevich & Spiridonov, 1990 (spelling
emended to CLARIAIDAE by the ruling in (1) above) is hereby placed on the
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology
(Rotifera).

History of Case 3148

An application to remove the homonymy between the family-group names
CLARHDAE Kutikova, Markevich & Spiridonov, 1990 (Rotifera) and CLARIIDAE
Bonaparte, 1846 (Osteichthyes) by emending the spelling of the rotifer family-group
name by adopting the full genus name as the stem, giving the corresponding
family-group name CLARIAIDAE Kutikova, Markevich & Spiridonov, 1990, was
received from L.A. Kutikova (Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences,
St Petersburg 199034, Russia) on 19 October 1999. After correspondence the case was

150 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003

published in BZN 58: 275-276 (December 2001). The title, abstract and keywords of
the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were
received.

Decision of the Commission

On | December 2002 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 58: 276. At the close of the voting period on | March
2003 the votes were as follows: 23 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, no
Commissioners voted AGAINST, Bohme abstained, no vote was received from
Mahnert, Ng was on leave of absence.

Original references

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion:

Claria Kutikova, Markevich & Spiridonov, 1990, Rotifera. Proceedings of the third All-Union
Rotifer symposium, p. 118.

CLARIAIDAE Kutikova, Markevich & Spiridonov, 1990, Rotifera. Proceedings of the third
All-Union Rotifer symposium, p. 118.

CLARHDAE Kutikova, Markevich & Spiridonov, 1990, Rotifera. Proceedings of the third
All-Union Rotifer symposium, p. 118.

segmentata, Claria, Kutikova, Markevich & Spiridonoy, 1990, Rotifera. Proceedings of the
third All-Union Rotifer symposium, p. 120.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 151

OPINION 2033 (Case 3156)

Chiton lepidus Reuss, 1860 (currently Lepidochitona lepida; Mollusca,
Polyplacophora): specific name conserved

Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the specific name of Chiton lepidus Reuss,
1860, for a chiton (currently Lepidochitona lepida, family 1sCcHNOCHITONIDAE, sub-
family LEPIDOCHITONINAE) from the Middle Miocene of Europe, is conserved. The
specific name was threatened by a senior primary homonym Chiton lepidus Gould,
1859 (family ISCHNOCHITONIDAE, subfamily ISCHNOCHITONINAE), the name used for a
Recent species from the Indo-Pacific.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Lepidochitona lepida: 1SCHNOCHITONIDAE;
ISCHNOCHITONINAE; LEPIDOCHITONINAE; chitons; Miocene; Europe; Indo-Pacific.

Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power it is ruled that the specific name /epidus Reuss, 1860,
as published in the binomen Chiton lepidus, is not invalid by reason of being a
junior primary homonym of Chiton lepidus Gould, 1859.
(2) The name /epidus Reuss, 1860, as published in the binomen Chiton lepidus (not
invalid by the ruling in (1) above), is hereby placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 3156

An application to conserve the specific name of Chiton lepidus Reuss, 1860
(currently Lepidochitona lepida, family IsCHNOCHITONIDAE, subfamily LEPIDOCHITONI-
NAE) from the Middle Miocene of Europe was received from Enrico Schwabe
(Miinchhausenstrasse 21, Munich, Germany) on 7 April 2000. After correspondence
the case was published in BZN 57: 207-209 (December 2000). Notice of the case was
sent to appropriate journals. A comment opposing the application was published in
BZN 58: 227 (September 2001) together with a reply from the author clarifying that
the application had been submitted under Article 23.9.5.

Decision of the Commission

On | December 2002 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 57: 208. At the close of the voting period on 1 March
2003 the votes were as follows: 22 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, 2
Commissioners (Bouchet and Calder) voted AGAINST, no vote was received from
Mahnert, Ng was on leave of absence.

Original reference

The following is the original reference to the name placed on an Official List by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:

lepidus, Chiton, Reuss, 1860, Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in
Wien, 39(2): 259.

152 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003

OPINION 2034 (Case 3087)

Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821: conserved by replacement of the lectotype
of Cyclostoma acutum Draparnaud, 1805 (currently Hydrobia acuta;
Mollusca, Gastropoda) with a neotype; Ventrosia Radoman, 1977:
Turbo ventrosus Montagu, 1803 designated as the type species; and
HYDROBIINA Mulsant, 1844 (Coleoptera): spelling emended to
HYDROBIUSINA, SO removing the homonymy with HyDROBIIDAE Troschel,
1857 (Gastropoda)

Abstract. The Commission has ruled that: (1) usage of the name Hydrobia Hartmann,
1821 for a genus of brackish-water prosobranch gastropods is conserved by
replacement of the lectotype of its type species, Cyclostoma acutum Draparnaud,
1805, by a neotype; (2) Turbo ventrosus Montagu, 1803 is designated the type species
of the nominal genus Ventrosia Radoman, 1977 and the lectotype designation for
T. ventrosus by Bank, Butot & Gittenberger (1979) is validated; and (3) the hom-
onymy between the family-group names HYyDROBIDAE Troschel, 1857 (Gastropoda)
and HypDROBIINA Mulsant, 1844 (Coleoptera) is removed by emending the stem of
the generic name Hydrobius Leach, 1815 (Coleoptera) to HypDRoBIUS-, leaving the
gastropod name based on Hydrobia unchanged.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Gastropoda; Coleoptera; Hydrobia; Hydrobius;
Ventrosia; Hydrobia acuta; Hydrobia ventrosa; Ventrosia ventrosa; HYDROBIIDAE;
HYDROPHILIDAE; HYDROBIUSINA.

Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power it is ruled that:

(a) all type fixations for the nominal species Cyclostoma acutum Draparnaud,
1805 are hereby set aside and-the specimen no. 90616 in the Naturhistor-
isches Museum in Vienna is designated as neotype;

(b) all type fixations for the nominal species Turbo ventrosus Montagu, 1803
prior to the lectotype designation by Bank, Butot & Gittenberger (1979) are
hereby set aside;

(c) all type fixations for the nominal genus Ventrosia Radoman, 1977 are
hereby set aside and Turbo ventrosus Montagu, 1803 is hereby designated
as the type species;

(d) for the purposes of Article 29.1 of the Code the stem of the generic name
Hydrobius Leach, 1815 is HypRosius- (Coleoptera).

(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology:

(a) Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent
designation by Gray (1847) Cyclostoma acutum Draparnaud, 1805;

(b) Ventrosia Radoman, 1977 (gender: feminine), type species by designation
under the plenary power in (1)(c) above Turbo ventrosus Montagu, 1803.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 153

(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names

in Zoology:

(a) acutum Draparnaud, 1805, as published in the binomen Cyclostoma acutum
and as defined by the neotype designated in (1)(a) above (specific name of
the type species of Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821);

(b) ventrosus Montagu, 1803, as published in the binomen Turbo ventrosus and
as defined by the lectotype designated by Bank, Butot & Gittenberger
(1979) (specific name of the type species of Ventrosia Radoman, 1977).

The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group

Names in Zoology:

(a) HYDROBIUSINA Mulsant, 1844, type genus Hydrobius Leach, 1815
(Coleoptera);

(b) HYDROBUDAE Troschel, 1857, type genus Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821
(Gastropoda).

(5) The name HypRoBUNA Mulsant, 1844 (spelling emended to HYDROBIUSINA by
the ruling in (1)(d) above) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology (Coleoptera).

(4

wa

History of Case 3087

An application to stabilise the usage of the name Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821 for a
genus of brackish-water prosobranch gastropods by the designation of a neotype for
the type species, Cyclostoma acutum Draparnaud, 1805, and designate Turbo
ventrosus Montagu, 1803 as the type species of the nominal genus Ventrosia
Radoman, 1977, and remove the homonymy between the family-group names
HYDROBIIDAE Troschel, 1857 (Gastropoda) and HypRoBIINA Mulsant, 1844 (Coleo-
ptera) by emending the stem of the generic name Hydrobius Leach, 1815 (Coleoptera)
to HYDROBIUS-, was received from F. Giusti, G. Manganelli & M. Bodon (Diparti-
mento di Biologia Evolutiva, Universita di Siena, Siena, Italy) on 9 October 1995. After
correspondence the case was published in BZN 55: 139-145 (September 1998). Notice
of the case was sent to appropriate journals.

A comment on the status of the type material was published in BZN 56: 56-57.
Comments opposing the application were published in BZN 56: 57-62, 143-144 and
BZN 58: 140-141. Comments in support of the application were published in BZN
56: 62-63, 144-148, 187-190, 268-270; BZN 58: 56-58, 301-303 and BZN 59:
128-130. An additional proposal was published in BZN 58: 58.

Decision of the Commission

On | December 2002 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals as separately indicated below. At the close of the voting period on 1 March
2003 the votes were as follows:

Vote 1: the proposals set out in BZN 55: 143 para. 12(1)(a) and (3)(a): 17
Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, 4 Commissioners (Alonso-Zarazaga,
Bock, Macpherson and van Tol) voted AGAINST, 3 Commissioners abstained, no
vote was received from Mahnert, Ng was on leave of absence.

Vote 2: the proposals set out in BZN 55: 143 para. 12(2)(a) and (4)(b): 19
Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, 2 Commissioners (Alonso-Zarazaga and

154 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003

Bock) voted AGAINST, 3 Commissioners abstained, no vote was received from
Mahnert, Ng was on leave of absence.

Vote 3: the proposals set out in BZN 55: 143 para. 12(1)(b), (2)(b) and (3)(b): 19
Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, 2 Commissioners (Alonso-Zarazaga and
Bock) voted AGAINST, 3 Commissioners abstained, no vote was received from
Mahnert, Ng was on leave of absence.

Vote 4: the proposals set out in BZN 55: 143 para. 12(1)(c), (4)(a) and (5): 20
Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, 2 Commissioners (Alonso-Zarazaga and
Bock) voted AGAINST, 2 Commissioners abstained, no vote was received from
Mahnert, Ng was on leave of absence.

Vote 5: the additional proposal set out in BZN 58: 58: 18 Commissioners voted
FOR the proposals, 3 Commissioners (Alonso-Zarazaga, Bock and Patterson) voted
AGAINST, 3 Commissioners abstained, no vote was received from Mahnert, Ng was
on leave of absence.

Original references

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion:

acutum, Cyclostoma, Draparnaud, 1805, Histoire naturelle des mollusques terrestres et
fluviatiles de la France, p. 40.

Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821, Neue ,Alpina, eine Schrift der Schweizerischen Naturgeschichte,
Alpen- und Landwirthschaft Gewiedmet, Winterthur, 1: 258.

HYDROBIDAE Troschel, 1857, Das Gebiss der Schnecken zur Begrtindung einer natiirlichen
Classification, vol. 1, part 2, p. 106.

HYDROBIINA Mulsant, 1844, Histoire naturelle des coléoptéres de France, vol. 3, p. 116.

HYDROBIUSINA Mulsant, 1844, Histoire naturelle des coléoptéres de France, vol. 3, p. 116.

Ventrosia Radoman, 1977, Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts Monographs Department of
Sciences, 57: 208.

ventrosus, Turbo, Montagu, 1803, Testacea Britannica or natural history of British shells .. .,
vol. 2, p. 317.

The following is the reference for the designation of Cyclostoma acutum Draparnaud, 1805
as the type species of Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821:

Gray, J.E. 1847. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 15: 151.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 155

OPINION 2035 (Case 3146)

Valvata minuta Draparnaud, 1805 (currently Hauffenia, Neohoratia or
Islamia minuta; Mollusca, Gastropoda): conserved by replacement of
the lectotype by a neotype

Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the current usage of the specific name of
Valvata minuta Draparnaud, 1805 for a small, valvatiform, freshwater prosobranch
gastropod (family HYDROBUDAE) from central Europe is conserved by the replacement
of the lectotype by a neotype.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Gastropoda; prosobranchs; HYDROBIIDAE;
Hauffenia minuta; Neohoratia minuta; Islamia minuta; Europe.

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary power it is ruled that all previous type fixations for the
nominal species Valvata minuta Draparnaud, 1805 are hereby set aside and the
specimen no. 100485 in the Naturhistorisches Museum in Vienna is designated
as the neotype.
The name minuta Draparnaud, 1805, as published in the binomen Valvata
minuta and as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above, is hereby placed
on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

S
WY

History of Case 3146

An application to conserve the current usage and understanding of the specific
name of Valvata minuta Draparnaud, 1805 (currently Hauffenia, Neohoratia or
Islamia minuta) for a small, valvatiform, freshwater prosobranch gastropod (family
HYDROBIIDAE) from central Europe was received from M. Bodon, G. Manganelli & F.
Giusti (Dipartimento di Biologia Evolutiva, Universita di Siena, Siena, Italy) on 6
October 1999. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 57: 144-146
(September 2000). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. The paper by
Bodon, Manganelli & Giusti, cited in paras. 1, 4 and 6 and the reference list of the
application as ‘in press’, was published in Malacologia (2001), 43: 103-215. The
description and illustration of the proposed neotype is on pages 195-196. No
comments on this case were received.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 September 2001 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 57: 145. At the close of the voting period on
1 December 2001 the votes were as follows: 22 Commissioners voted FOR the
proposals, 2 Commissioners (Halliday and Stys) voted AGAINST, no vote was
received from Dupuis, Kerzhner and Song.

156 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003

Original reference

The following is the original reference to the name placed on an Official List by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:
minuta, Valvata, Draparnaud, 1805, Histoire naturelle des mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles de
la France, p. 42.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 157

OPINION 2036 (Case 3153)

HIPPOPODIIDAE Cox, 1969 (Mollusca, Bivalvia): spelling emended to
HIPPOPODIUMIDAE, SO removing the homonymy with HIPPOPODIIDAE
Kolliker, 1853 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa)

Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the stem of the name of the type genus
Hippopodium J. Sowerby, 1819 is emended to HipporpoprumM- (Mollusca, Bivalvia)
thus removing the homonymy with the family-group name HIppoPODIIDAE Kolliker,
1853 (based on Hippopodius Quoy & Gaimard, 1827) (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa). The
spelling of the family-group name HIPPOPODIIDAE Cox, 1969, a junior homonym of
HIPPOPODIIDAE KOlliker, 1853, is emended to HIPPOPODIUMIDAE.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Hydrozoa; Siphonophorae; Bivalvia; HIPPo-
PODIIDAE; HIPPOPODIUMIDAE; Hippopodius; Hippopodium; fossil bivalves; Jurassic;
Triassic; Recent.

Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power it is ruled that for the purposes of Article 29 of the
Code the stem of the generic name Hippopodium J. Sowerby, 1819 (Bivalvia) is
HIPPOPODIUM-.
(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology:

(a) Hippopodius Quoy & Gaimard, 1827 (gender: masculine), type species by
monotypy Hippopodius luteus Quoy & Gaimard, 1827 (a junior subjective
synonym of Gleba hippopus Forsskal, 1776) (Hydrozoa);

(b) Hippopodium J. Sowerby, 1819 (gender: neuter), type species by monotypy
Hippopodium ponderosum J. Sowerby, 1819 (Bivalvia).

The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names

in Zoology:

(a) hippopus Forsskal, 1776, as published in the binomen Gleba hippopus
(senior subjective synonym of Hippopodius luteus Quoy & Gaimard, 1827,
the type species of Hippopodius Quoy & Gaimard, 1827) (Hydrozoa);

(b) ponderosum J. Sowerby, 1819, as published in the binomen Hippopodium
ponderosum (specific name of the type species of Hippopodium J. Sowerby,
1819) (Bivalvia).

The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group

Names in Zoology:

(a) HIPPOPODIIDAE KOlliker, 1853, type genus Hippopodius Quoy & Gaimard,
1827 (Hydrozoa);

(b) HIPPOPODIUMIDAE Cox, 1969, type genus Hippopodium J. Sowerby, 1819
(spelling emended by the ruling in (1) above) (Bivalvia).

(5) The name HippopODIIDAE Cox, 1969 (spelling emended to HIPPOPODIUMIDAE by
the ruling in (1) above) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology (Bivalvia).

(3

SS

(4

~

158 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003

History of Case 3153

An application to emend the spelling of HippopopIIDAE Cox, 1969 (Mollusca,
Bivalvia) to HIPPOPODIUMIDAE, so removing the homonymy with HIPPOPODIIDAE
K6lliker, 1853 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa) was received from Antonio C. Marques
(Departamento de Biologia, Faculdade de Filosofia, Ciéncias e Letras de Ribeirdo
Preto, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Ay. Bandeirantes 3900, Ribeirdo Preto, SP, Brazil),
Luiz E. Anelli (Departamento de Geologia Sedimentar e Ambiental, Instituto de
Geociéncias, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Rua do Lago, SGo Paulo, SP, Brazil) and
Marcello G. Sim6es (Departamento de Zoologia, Instituto de Biociéncias, Universi-
dade Estadual Paulista — Botucatu, Botucatu, SP, Brazil) on 23 June 1999. After
correspondence the case was published in BZN 58: 193-195 (September 2001). The
title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website.
No comments on this case were received.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 December 2002 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on
the proposals published in BZN 58: 194-195. At the close of the voting period on
1 March 2003 the votes were as follows: 23 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals,
1 Commissioner (BOhme) voted AGAINST, no vote was received from Mahnert,
Ng was on leave of absence.

Original references

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion:

HIPPOPODIDAE Cox, 1969, Treatise on invertebrate paleontology, part N, vol. 2, p. 582.

HIPPOPODIIDAE KOlliker, 1853, Die Schwimmpolypen oder Siphonophoren von Messina, p. 28.

Hippopodium J. Sowerby, 1819, The mineral conchology of Great Britain, vol. 3, no. 44, p. 91.

HIPPOPODIUMIDAE Cox, 1969, Treatise on invertebrate paleontology, part N, vol. 2, p. 582.

Hippopodius Quoy & Gaimard, 1827, Annales des Sciences Naturelles, 10: 172.

hippopus, Gleba, Forsskal, 1776, Icones rerum naturalium quae in itinere Orientali depingi
curavit P. Forskal, pl. 43, fig. E. e

ponderosum, Hippopodium, J. Sowerby, 1819, The mineral conchology of Great Britain, vol. 3,
no. 44, p. 91. °

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 159

OPINION 2037 (Cases 3120 and 3120a)

LIOCHELIDAE Fet & Bechly, 2001 (1879) (Scorpiones): adopted as a
valid substitute name for ISCHNURIDAE Simon, 1879 in order to remove
homonymy with ISCHNURINAE Fraser, 1957 (Insecta, Odonata)

Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the scorpion family name LIOCHELIDAE Fet
& Bechly, 2001 (1879) is to have precedence over ISCHNURIDAE Simon, 1879, which is
a homonym of the widely used damselfly name ISCHNURINAE Fraser, 1957 (Odonata).
The type genus of LIOCHELIDAE is Liocheles Sundevall, 1833, which is in wide use as
the valid senior subjective synonym of the long abandoned name I[schnurus C.L.
Koch, 1837 (the type genus of ISCHNURIDAE Simon, 1879). IsSCHNURINAE Fraser, 1957
is not to be rejected despite being a junior homonym of ISCHNURIDAE Simon, 1879.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Scorpiones; Odonata; ISCHNURIDAE; LIOCHEL-
IDAE; COENAGRIONIDAE; Liocheles; Ischnura; scorpions; damselflies.

Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that:
(a) the name LIOCHELIDAE Fet & Bechly, 2001 is to be given precedence over the
name ISCHNURIDAE Simon, 1879;
(b) the name ISCHNURINAE Fraser, 1957 (Odonata) is not to be treated as invalid
by reason of being a junior homonym of ISCHNURIDAE Simon, 1879
(Scorpiones).
(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology:

(a) Ischnura Charpentier, 1840 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent
designation by Selys-Longchamps (1850) Agrion elegans Van der Linden,
1823 (type genus of ISCHNURINAE Fraser, 1957);

(b) Liocheles Sundevall, 1833 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy
Scorpio australasiae Fabricius, 1775 (type genus of LIOCHELIDAE Fet &
Bechly, 2001 (1879)).

The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names

in Zoology:

(a) elegans Van der Linden, 1823, as published in the binomen Agrion elegans
(specific name of the type species of Jschnura Charpentier, 1840);

(b) australasiae Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Scorpio
australasiae (specific name of the type species of Liocheles Sundevall,
1833).

The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group

Names in Zoology:

(a) ISCHNURINAE Fraser, 1957 (type genus Jschnura Charpentier, 1840;
Odonata), with the endorsement that it is not to be treated as invalid
by reason of being a junior homonym of ISCHNURIDAE Simon, 1879
(Scorpiones);

—~
(oS)
=

&

160 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003

(b) LIOCHELIDAE Fet & Bechly, 2001 (1879) (type genus Liocheles Sundevall,
1833: Scorpiones), with the endorsement that it has precedence over the
name ISCHNURIDAE Simon, 1879.

(5) The name IscHNURIDAE Simon, 1879 (type genus /schnurus C.L. Koch, 1837;
Scorpiones), with the endorsement that it is to be treated as junior to
LIOCHELIDAE Fet & Bechly, 2001 (1879) (type genus Liocheles Sundevall, 1833),
is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group
Names in Zoology.

History of Cases 3120 and 3120a

An application submitted by Victor Fet (Department of Biological Sciences,
Marshall University, West Virginia, U.S.A.) and Gunter Bechly (Staatliches Museum
fiir Naturkunde, Rosenstein 1, D-70191 Stuttgart, Germany), proposing emendation of
the name ISCHNURINAE Fraser, 1857 to ISCHNURAINAE, was published as Case 3120
(BZN 57: 26-28). However, once it was realised that the introduction of the family
name LIOCHELIDAE (based on Liocheles Sundevall, 1833, which is universally used as
the senior synonym of Ischnura C.L. Koch, 1837) avoided this undesirable change,
the case was modified.

A second version of this application was submitted on 10 February 1999. This time
the application focused on the adoption of the new scorpion family name LIOCHEL-
IDAE Fet & Bechly, 2001 (1879) as a valid substitute name for ISCHNURIDAE Simon,
1879. After correspondence the application was published as Case 3120a in BZN 58:
280-281 (December 2001). The title, abstract and keywords of this case were
published on the Commission’s website. Comments in support of the revised
application (Case 3120a) were published in BZN 59: 38.

Decision of the Commission

On | December 2002 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on
proposals (3) and (4) published in BZN 57: 27 and the proposals published in BZN
58: 281. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 2003 the votes were as follows:
19 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, 4 Commissioners (Alonso-Zarazaga,
Bouchet, Fortey and Stys) voted AGAINST, Béhme abstained, no vote was received
from Mahnert, Ng was on leave of absence.

Voting against, Alonso-Zarazaga commented that ‘in this case priority should
apply; ISCHNURIDAE Simon, 1879 is widely used in Scorpiones and substitution of this
name is both contrary to priority and to stability. Emendation of IscHNURINAE Fraser,
1957 to ISCHNURAINAE is the simplest course to follow, as well as the closest to the
Code. This would avoid the creation of another name (LIOCHELIDAE) whose usefulness
is doubtful’.

Original references

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion:

australasiae, Scorpio, Fabricius, 1775, Systema entomologiae, p. 399.
elegans, Agrion, Van der Linden, 1823, Agriones Bononienses descriptae, p. 104.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 161

Ischnura Charpentier, 1840, Libellulinae Europaeae descriptae ac depictae, p. 20.

ISCHNURIDAE Simon, 1879, Les Arachnides de France. VII. Contenant les Ordres des Chernetes,
Scorpiones et Opiliones, p. 92.

ISCHNURINAE Fraser, 1957, A reclassification of the order Odonata, p. 49.

Liocheles Sundevall, 1833, Conspectus Arachnidum, p. 31.

LIOCHELIDAE Fet & Bechly, 2001 (1879), BZN 58: 281.

The following is the reference for the subsequent designation of Agrion elegans Van der
Linden, 1823 as the type species of /schnura Charpentier, 1840:

Selys-Longchamps, M.E. de. 1850. Mémoires de la Société des Sciences de Liége, vol. 6, p. 182.

162

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003

OPINION 2038 (Case 3155)

MACROTERMITINAE Kemner, 1934 (Insecta, Isoptera): given precedence
Over ACANTHOTERMITINAE Sjéstedt, 1926

Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the family-group name MACROTERMITINAE
is given precedence over ACANTHOTERMITINAE. Usage of the family-group name
MACROTERMITINAE Kemner, 1934 (type genus Macrotermes Holmgren, 1909) for a
well known and important group of fungus-growing termites is thus conserved. The
senior subfamily name ACANTHOTERMITINAE SjOstedt, 1926 (type genus Acanthotermes
Sj6stedt, 1900) has been used only once since its establishment 77 years ago, and then
for a tribe within MACROTERMITINAE not including Macrotermes.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Isoptera; TERMITIDAE; MACROTERMITINAE;
ACANTHOTERMITINAE; Macrotermes; Acanthotermes; termites.

Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that the family-group name

3

—S

ay

wm

MACROTERMITINAE Kemner, 1934 and other family-group names based on

Macrotermes Holmgren,'1909 are to be given precedence over ACANTHOTERMIT-

INAE SjOstedt, 1926 and other family-group names based on Acanthotermes

Sj6stedt, 1900 whenever their type genera are placed in the same family-group

taxon.

The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names

in Zoology:

(a) Macrotermes Holmgren, 1909 (gender: masculine), type species by
monotypy Termes lilljeborgi Sjostedt, 1896;

(b) Acanthotermes Sj6stedt, 1900 (gender: masculine), type species by subse-
quent designation by Sjéstedt (1926) Termes acanthothorax Sjostedt, 1898.

The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names

in Zoology: :

(a) lilljeborgi Sj6stedt, 1896, as published in the binomen Termes lilljeborgi
(specific name of the type species of Macrotermes Holmgren, 1909);

(b) acanthothorax Sjostedt, 1898, as published in the binomen Termes
acanthothorax (specific name of the type species of Acanthotermes SjOstedt,
1900).

The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group

Names in Zoology:

(a) MACROTERMITINAE Kemner, 1934 (type genus Macrotermes Holmgren,
1909), with the endorsement that it and other family-group names based on
Macrotermes are to be given precedence over ACANTHOTERMITINAE SjOstedt,
1926 and other family-group names based on Acanthotermes Sj6stedt, 1900
whenever their type genera are placed in the same family-group taxon;

(b) ACANTHOTERMITINAE Sjéstedt, 1926 (type genus Acanthotermes Sj6stedt,
1900), with the endorsement that it and other family-group names. based on

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 163

Acanthotermes are not to be given priority over MACROTERMITINAE Kemner,
1934 and other family-group names based on Macrotermes Holmgren,
1909 whenever their type genera are placed in the same family-group taxon.

History of Case 3155

An application to conserve the usage of the family-group name MACROTERMITINAE
Kemner, 1934 (type genus Macrotermes Holmgren, 1909) for a well known and
important group of fungus-growing termites, by giving it precedence over the senior
subfamily name ACANTHOTERMITINAE SjOstedt, 1926, was received from Michael S.
Engel (Division of Entomology, Snow Hall, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.) and Kumar
Krishna (Division of Invertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History,
New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) on 27 March 2000. After correspondence the case was
published in BZN 58: 206-209 (September 2001). The title, abstract and keywords of
the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were
received.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 December 2002 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 58: 207-208. At the close of the voting period on
1 March 2003 the votes were as follows: 21 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals,
3 Commissioners (Alonso-Zarazaga, Lamas and Minelli) voted AGAINST, no vote
was received from Mahnert, Ng was on leave of absence.

Original references

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:

Acanthotermes Sjostedt, 1900, Entomologisk Tidskrift, 20: 278.

ACANTHOTERMITINAE SjOstedt, 1926, Kungliga Svenska Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingar,
(3)3(1): 8, 60.

acanthothorax, Termes, Sjéstedt, 1898, Entomologisk Tidskrift, 19: 204.

lilljeborgi, Termes, Sj6stedt, 1896, Festskrift for Lilljeborg, p. 269.

Macrotermes Holmgren, 1909, Kungliga Svenska Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingar, (2)44(3):
193.

MACROTERMITINAE Kemner, 1934, Kungliga Svenska Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingar,
(3)13(4): 69.

The following is the reference for the designation of Termes acanthothorax Sj6stedt, 1898 as
the type species of the nominal genus Acanthotermes Sj6stedt, 1900:

Sjéstedt, Y. 1926, Kungliga Svenska Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingar, (3)3(1): 60.

164 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003

OPINION 2039 (Case 3159)

Staphylinus maculosus and S. violaceus Grayenhorst, 1802 (currently
Platydracus maculosus and P. violaceus; Insecta, Coleoptera): usage of
the specific names conserved

Abstract. The Commission has ruled (1) that the widely used staphylinid name
Platydracus maculosus (Gravenhorst, 1802) is conserved by suppressing its senior
subjective synonym Staphylinus viduatus Fabricius, 1801, which has been used
only once in the past 160 years, and (2) that the specific name of Platydracus violaceus
(Gravenhorst, 1802) is not invalid by reason of being a junior primary homonym of
Staphylinus violaceus Olivier, 1795.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; sSTAPHYLINIDAE; Platydracus:
Platydracus maculosus; Platydracus violaceus; rove beetles.

Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power it is ruled that:

(a) the name viduatus Fabricius, 1801, as published in the binomen Staphylinus
viduatus, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority
but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy;

(b) the name violaceus Gravenhorst, 1802, as published in the binomen
Staphylinus violaceus, is not invalid by reason of being a junior primary
homonym of Staphylinus violaceus Olivier, 1795.

(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology:

(a) maculosus Gravenhorst, 1802, as published in the binomen Staphylinus
maculosus;

(b) violaceus Gravenhorst, 18027 as published in the binomen Staphylinus
violaceus (not invalid by the ruling in (1)(b) above).

(3) The name viduatus Fabricius, 1801, as published in the binomen Staphylinus
viduatus and as suppressed in (1)(a) above, is hereby placed on the Official

Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 3159

An application to (1) conserve the widely used staphylinid name Staphylinus
maculosus Gravenhorst, 1802 by suppression of its senior subjective synonym
Staphylinus yiduatus Fabricius, 1801 and (2) to conserve the specific name of
Staphylinus violaceus Gravenhorst, 1802 was received from A.F. Newton (Field
Museum of Natural History, South Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.) on 8
May 2000. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 58: 210-214
(September 2001). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the
Commission’s website. No comments on this case were received.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 165

Decision of the Commission

On 1 December 2002 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 58: 212-213. At the close of the voting period on
1 March 2003 the votes were as follows: 23 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals,
no Commissioners voted AGAINST, Stys abstained, no vote was received from
Mahnert, Ng was on leave of absence.

Original references

The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an
Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion:

maculosus, Staphylinus, Gravenhorst, 1802, Coleoptera Microptera Brunsvicensia, p. 165.
viduatus, Staphylinus, Fabricius, 1801, Systema Eleutheratorum . . ., vol. 2, p. 591.
violaceus, Staphylinus, Gravenhorst, 1802, Coleoptera Microptera Brunsvicensia, p. 162.

166 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003

OPINION 2040 (Case 3190)

Chlorops meigenii Loew, 1866 (Insecta, Diptera): specific name
conserved

Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the name of the Palaearctic grassfly Chlorops
meigenii Loew, 1866 (family CHLOROPIDAE) 1s not invalid by reason of being a junior
primary homonym of Chlorops meigenii Fallen, 1823. Fallén’s name has been treated
as a junior synonym of Cerodontha denticornis (Panzer, 1806; AGROMYZIDAE) since
1830 and the case was referred to the Commission under Article 23.9.5 of the Code.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Diptera; CHLOROPIDAE; Chlorops; Chlorops
meigenit; grassflies; Palaearctic.

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that the specific name of Chlorops
meigenii Loew, 1866 is not invalid by reason of being a junior primary
homonym of Chlorops meigenii Fallén, 1823.

(2) The name meigenii Loew, 1866, as published in the binomen Chlorops meigenii,
is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology (ruled in (1)
above not invalid by reason of being a junior primary homonym of C. meigenii
Fallén, 1823).

History of Case 3190

An application for the conservation of the name of the Palaearctic grassfly
Chlorops meigenii Loew, 1866 (family CHLOROPIDAE) was received from Emilia P.
Nartshuk (Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg, Russia)
on 29 January 2001. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 58:
286-287 (December 2001). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were
published on the Commission’s website. A comment in support of the application
was published in BZN 59: 204-205.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 December 2002 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 58: 286-287. At the close of the voting period on
1 March 2003 the votes were as follows: 24 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals,
no Commissioners voted AGAINST, no vote was received from Mahnert, Ng was on
leave of absence.

Original reference

The following is the original reference to the name placed on an Official List by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:

meigenii, Chlorops, Loew, 1866, Zeitschrift ftir Entomologie (Breslau), 20: 43.

167 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003

OPINION 2041 (Case 3081)

Alucita ochrodactyla Denis & Schiffermiiller, 1775 (currently Gillmeria
or Platyptilia ochrodactyla; Insecta, Lepidoptera): specific name
conserved by the designation of a neotype for Phalaena tetradactyla
Linnaeus, 1758

Abstract. The Commission has designated the lectotype of Phalaena tridactyla
Linnaeus, 1758 (currently Merrifieldia tridactyla) as neotype for the European plume
moth P. tetradactyla Linnaeus, 1758 (family PrEROPHORIDAE) conserving the specific
name of Gillmeria (or Platyptilia) ochrodactyla (Denis & Schiffermiller, 1775) and
eliminating the confused application of the name tetradactyla to more than one
species.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Lepidoptera; Microlepidoptera; PrEROPHORIDAE;
Gillmeria ochrodactyla; Platyptilia ochrodactyla; Phalaena (currently Merrifieldia)
tridactyla; Alucita (currently Merrifieldia) leucodactyla; plume moths.

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary power all previous type fixations for the nominal species
Phalaena tetradactyla Linnaeus, 1758 are hereby set aside and the lectotype of
P. tridactyla Linnaeus, 1758 designated by Robinson & Nielsen (1983) is
designated as the neotype.

(2) The name Phalaena tridactyla Linnaeus, 1758, as defined by the neotype
designated in (1) above, is given precedence over the name P. tetradactyla
Linnaeus, 1758 (an objective synonym by the ruling in (1) above).

(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names

in Zoology:

(a) tridactyla Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the bomen Phalaena tridactyla
and as defined by the lectotype designated by Robinson & Nielsen (1983);

(b) ochrodactyla Denis & Schiffermuller, 1775, as published in the binomen
Alucita ochrodactyla;

(c) leucodactyla Denis & Schiffermiiller, 1775, as published in the binomen
Alucita leucodactyla and as defined by the neotype designated by
Arenberger (1985).

The name tetradactyla Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Phalaena

tetradactyla and as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above (a junior

objective synonym of P. tridactyla Linnaeus, 1758 by the precedence ruled in

(2) above) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid

Specific Names in Zoology.

(4

~—

History of Case 3081

An application for the conservation of the specific name of Gillmeria (or
Platyptilia) ochrodactyla (Denis & Schiffermiller, 1775) by the designation of a
neotype for Phalaena tetradactyla Linnaeus, 1758 was received from D.J.L. Agassiz

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 168

(The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London) on 10 June 1998. After
correspondence the case was published in BZN 58: 282-285 (December 2001). The
title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website.
No comments on this case were received.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 December 2002 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 58: 284. At the close of the voting period on 1 March
2003 the votes were as follows: 24 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, no
Commissioners voted AGAINST, no vote was received from Mahnert, Ng was on
leave of absence.

Original references

The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an
Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion:

leucodactyla, Alucita, Denis & Schiffermiller, 1775, Anktindung eines systematisches Werkes
von den Schmetterlinge der Wiener Gegend, p. 146.

ochrodactyla, Alucita, Denis & Schiffermiller, 1775, Ankiindung eines systematisches Werkes
von den Schmetterlinge der Wiener Gegend, p. 145.

tetradactyla, Phalaena, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 542.

tridactyla, Phalaena, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 542.

The following is the reference for the designation of the lectotype of Phalaena tridactyla
Linnaeus, 1758:

Robinson, G. S. & Nielsen, E. S. 1983. Systematic Entomology, 8: 234.

The following is the reference for the designation of the neotype of Alucita leucodactyla
Denis & Schiffermuller, 1775:

Arenberger, E. 1985. Entomologische Zeitschrift, 95(17): 245.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 169

OPINION 2042 (Case 3160)

Dianulites petropolitana Dybowski, 1877 and Diplotrypa petropolitana
Nicholson, 1879 (Bryozoa): conserved

Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the specific names of Dianulites petro-
politana Dybowski, 1877 and Diplotrypa petropolitana Nicholson, 1879, used for
two Ordovician trepostome bryozoans, are conserved. The name Favosites petro-
politana Pander, 1830, now recognized as having been used for a single or several
indeterminable bryozoans, is suppressed.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Bryozoa; Trepostomata; Ordovician; Dianulites;
Diplotrypa; Dianulites petropolitana; Diplotrypa petropolitana.

Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power it is ruled that:

(a) the name petropolitana Pander, 1830, as published in the binomen Favosites
petropolitana, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of
Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy;

(b) the following specific names are hereby deemed to be those of then new
nominal species:

(i) petropolitana Dybowski, 1877, as published in the binomen Dianulites
petropolitana;

(ii) petropolitana Nicholson, 1879, as published in the binomen Diplotrypa
petropolitana;

(c) all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Diplotrypa
Nicholson, 1879 are hereby set aside and Diplotrypa petropolitana
Nicholson, 1879 is designated as the type species.

The name Diplotrypa Nicholson, 1879 (gender: feminine), type species by

designation under the plenary power in (1)(c) above Diplotrypa petropolitana

Nicholson, 1879, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in

Zoology.

The following names, deemed to be then new nominal species as ruled under

the plenary power (1)(b) above, are hereby placed on the Official List of

Specific Names in Zoology:

(a) petropolitana Dybowski, 1877, as published in the binomen Dianulites
petropolitana;

(b) petropolitana Nicholson, 1879; as published in the binomen Diplotrypa
petropolitana and as defined by the lectotype designated in BZN 58: 217;

The name petropolitana Pander, 1830, as published in the binomen Favosites

petropolitana and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official

Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.

—
i)
~S

(3

—

(4

a

History of Case 3160
An application to conserve the specific names of Dianulites petropolitana
Dybowski, 1877 and Diplotrypa petropolitana Nicholson, 1879 for two Ordovician

170 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003

trepostome bryozoans was received from Patrick N. Wyse Jackson (Department
of Geology, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland), Caroline J. Buttler (Department of
Geology, National Museums and Galleries of Wales, Cardiff, Wales, U.K.) and Marcus
M. Key, Jr. (Department of Geology, Dickinson College, Carlisle, Pennsylvania,
U.S.A.) on 20 July 2000. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 58:
215-219 (September 2001). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were
published on the Commission’s website. A comment opposing the application was
published in BZN 59: 40-42. The authors’ response to this comment was published
in BZN 59: 42-44, together with a comment supporting the application.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 December 2002 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 58: 217-218. At the close of the voting period on
1 March 2003 the votes were as follows: 19 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals,
5 Commissioners (Alonso-Zarazaga, Macpherson, Minelli, Rosenberg and Stys)
voted AGAINST, no vote was received from Mahnert, Ng was on leave of absence.

Original references

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion:

Diplotrypa Nicholson, 1879, On the Structure and Affinities of the ‘Tabulate Corals’ of the
Palaeozoic Period with critical descriptions of illustrative species, p. 312.

petropolitana, Dianulites, Dybowski, 1877, Die Chaetetiden der Osthaltischen Silur-Formation,
p. 24.

petropolitana, Diplotrypa, Nicholson, 1879, On the Structure and Affinities of the “Tabulate
Corals’ of the Palaeozoic Period with critical descriptions of illustrative species, p. 313.

petropolitana, Favosites, Pander, 1830, Beitrage zur Geognosie des Russischen Reiches, p. 105.

The following is the reference for the designation of the lectotype of Diplotrypa petropolitana
Nicholson, 1879:

Wyse Jackson, P.N., Buttler, C.J. & Key, M.M., Jr. 2001. BZN 58: 217.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 171

OPINION 2043 (Case 3113)

Betta Bleeker, 1850 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes): specific names
conserved by the suppression of the generic and specific names
Micracanthus marchei Sauvage, 1879

Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the specific names of the Southeast Asian
‘fighting fishes’ that belong to the genus Betta Bleeker, 1850 (family OsPHRONEMIDAE)
are conserved by the suppression of the unused generic and specific names Micra-
canthus marchei Sauvage, 1879.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Osteichthyes; Perciformes; OSPHRONEMIDAE;
Betta; Micracanthus; Betta splendens; Betta smaragdina; Betta imbellis; Micracanthus
marchei; fighting fishes; Southeast Asia.

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary power the generic and specific names of Micracanthus
marchei Sauvage, 1879 are hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle
of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy.

(2) The name Micracanthus Sauvage, 1879 (gender: masculine), as suppressed in
(1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name marchei Sauvage, 1879, as published in the binomen Micracanthus
marchei and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index
of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 3113

An application to conserve the specific names of the Southeast Asian ‘fighting
fishes’ which belong to the genus Betta Bleeker, 1850 (family OSsPHRONEMIDAE), by
the suppression of the unused name Micracanthus marchei Sauvage, 1879, was
received from H.H. Tan and Peter K.L. Ng (Department of Biological Sciences,
National University of Singapore, Singapore, Republic of Singapore) on 16 January
1999. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 57: 29-31 (March 2000).
Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments on this case were
received.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 December 2002 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 57: 30. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 2003
the votes were as follows: 23 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, 1 Commis-
sioner (Rosenberg) voted AGAINST, no vote was received from Mahnert, Ng was
on leave of absence.

Voting against, Rosenberg commented: ‘Micracanthus marchei is a nomen dubium.
If at some point DNA or other technology allows positive identification of the
species, and it proves to be a senior synonym of a known species, the merits of

172 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003

suppressing the name can be evaluated. Only four publications using the possibly
junior synonyms from the 1970s are cited, so the earlier name seems to pose no great

threat to stability’.

Original references

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Indexes by the
ruling given in the present Opinion:

Micracanthus Sauvage, 1879, Bulletin de la Société Philomathique de Paris, (7)3: 95.
marchei, Micracanthus, Sauvage, 1879, Bulletin de la Société Philomathique de Paris, (7)3: 96.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 173

OPINION 2044 (Case 3172)

Leptodactylus chaquensis Cei, 1950 (Amphibia, Anura): specific name
conserved

Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the specific name of Leptodactylus chaquensis
Cei, 1950, a subtropical South American frog, is conserved. The specific name was
threatened by the senior synonym L. typicus Cei, 1948, available under Article 45.6.4 of
the Code. The name L. typica was applied in 1948 to what was then supposed to be a
‘forma’ of L. ocellatus Linnaeus, 1758, but has never been used and is now suppressed.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Anura; LEPTODACTYLIDAE; Leptodactylus;
Leptodactylus chaquensis; Leptodactylus ocellatus; frogs; South America.

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary power the name typica Cei, 1948, as published in the com-
bination Leptodactylus ocellatus forma typica, is suppressed for the purposes of
the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy.

(2) The name chaquensis Cei, 1950, as published in the binomen Leptodactylus
chaquensis, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

(3) The name typica Cei, 1948, as published in the combination Leptodactylus
ocellatus forma typica and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 3172

An application to conserve the widely used name Leptodactylus chaquensis Cei,
1950 for a subtropical South American frog by suppression of the name L. typicus
Cei, 1948 was received from José M. Cei (Departamento Ciencias Naturales,
Universidad Nacional de Rio Cuarto, Rio Cuarto, Cordoba, Argentina) on 31 August
2000. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 58: 116-118. The title,
abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. A
comment in support of the application was published in BZN 59: 44-45.

Decision of the Commission

On | December 2002 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 58: 117. At the close of the voting period on | March
2003 the votes were as follows: 24 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, no
Commissioners voted AGAINST, no vote was received from Mahnert, Ng was on
leave of absence.

Original references

The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an
Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion:

chaquensis, Leptodactylus, Cei, 1950, Acta Zoologica Lilloana, 9: 417.
typica, Leptodactylus ocellatus ‘forma’, Cei, 1948, Acta Zoologica Lilloana, 6: 308.

174 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003

OPINION 2045 (Case 3165)

Parasuchus hislopi Lydekker, 1885 (Reptilia, Archosauria): lectotype
replaced by a neotype

Abstract. The Commission has set aside the lectotype for the well known crocodile-
like archosaurian (phytosaur or parasuchid) Parasuchus hislopi Lydekker, 1885
(Reptilia, Archosauria) from the Late Triassic Maleri Formation of India and
designated the complete articulated skeleton ISIR 42 in the Geological Museum of
the Indian Statistical Institute, Calcutta, India, as the neotype.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Archosauria; PARASUCHIDAE; PHYTOSAURIDAE;
Parasuchus; Paleorhinus; Parasuchus hislopi; archosaurs; parasuchids; phytosaurs;
Triassic.

Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power all previous fixations of name-bearing types for the
nominal species Parasuchus hislopi Lydekker, 1885 are set aside and the
articulated skeleton ISIR 42 in the Geological Museum of the Indian
Statistical Institute, Calcutta, India, is designated as the neotype.

(2) The name Parasuchus Lydekker, 1885 (gender: masculine), type species by

monotypy Parasuchus hislopi Lydekker, 1885, is hereby placed on the Official
List of Generic Names in Zoology.
The name hislopi Lydekker, 1885, as published in the bmomen Parasuchus
hislopi and as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above (specific name of
the type species of Parasuchus Lydekker, 1885), is hereby placed on the Official
List of Specific Names in Zoology.

3

m

History of Case 3165

An application to replace the lectotype of the well known crocodile-like archo-
saurian (phytosaur or parasuchid) Parasuchus hislopi Lydekker, 1885 (Reptilia,
Archosauria) from the Late Triassic Maleri Formation of India by the designation of
the complete articulated skeleton ISIR 42 in the Geological Museum of the Indian
Statistical Institute, Calcutta, India, as the neotype was received from Sankar
Chatterjee (Museum of TexasTech University, Lubbock, Texas, U.S.A.) on 23 May
2000. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 58: 34-36 (March 2001).
The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s
website. A comment in support of the application was published in BZN 58: 228-229.

Decision of the Commission

On | December 2002 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on
the proposals published in BZN 58: 35. At the close of the voting period on | March
2003 the votes were as follows: 23 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, no
Commissioners voted AGAINST, Kerzhner abstained, no vote was received from
Mahnert, Ng was on leave of absence.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 175
Original references

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:

Parasuchus Lydekker, 1885, Palaeontologia Indica, (4)1(5): 22.
hislopi, Parasuchus, Lydekker, 1885, Palaeontologia Indica, (4)1(5): 23.

176 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003

INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS

The following notes are primarily for those preparing applications to the Commis-
sion; other authors should comply with the relevant sections. Applications should be
prepared in the format of recent parts of the Bulletin; manuscripts not prepared in
accordance with these guidelines may be returned.

General. Applications are requests to the Commission to set aside or modify the
Code’s provisions as they relate to a particular name or group of names when this
appears to be in the interest of stability of nomenclature. Authors submitting cases
should regard themselves as acting on behalf of the zoological community and the
Commission will treat all applications on this basis. Applicants should discuss their
cases with other workers in the same field before submitting applications, so that they
are aware of any wider implications and the likely reactions of other zoologists.

Text. Typed in double spacing, this should consist of numbered paragraphs setting
out the details of the case and leading to a final paragraph of formal proposals to the
Commission. Text references should give dates and pages in parentheses, e.g. “Daudin
(1800, p. 49) described ..... The Abstract will be prepared by the Commission’s
Secretariat.

References. These should be given for all authors cited. Where possible, ten or more
reasonably recent references should be given illustrating the usage of names which are
to be conserved or given precedence over older names. The title of periodicals should
be in full and in italics; numbers of volumes, parts, etc. should be in arabic figures,
separated by a colon from page numbers. Book titles should be in italics and followed
by the number of pages and plates, the publisher and place of publication. More
detailed instructions on the preparation of references are given in BZN 59: 159-160.

Submission of Application. One copy should be sent to: Executive Secretary, the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History
Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. It would help to reduce the time
it takes to process the large number of applications received if the typescript could be
accompanied by a disk with copy in IBM PC compatible format, or the script sent via
e-mail to ‘iczn@nhm.ac.uk’ within the message or as an attachment (disks and
attachments to be in Word, rtf or ASCII text). It would also be helpful if applications
were accompanied by photocopies of relevant pages of the main references where this
is possible.

The Commission’s Secretariat is very willing to advise on all aspects of the
formulation of an application.

Contents — continued

On the proposed conservation of Cyphosoma Mannerheim, 1837 and proposed
precedence of Halecia Laporte & Gory, 1837 over Pristiptera Dejean, 1833
(Insecta, Coleoptera). Vladimir Sakalian; Roman B. Hotynski

On the proposed precedence of Aegorhinus Erichson, 1834 (Insecta, Gleaner over
Psuchocephalus Latreille, 1828. M. A. Alonso-Zarazaga & C. H. C. Lyal

Nomenclatural note
The authorship and dates of Pieter Cramer’s De Uitlandsche Kapellen: a request for
comments from lepidopterists. J. E. Chainey

Rulings of the Commission

OPINION 2031 (Case 2710). cLAvIDAE McCrady, 1859 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa) and
CLAVINAE Casey, 1904 (Mollusca, See proposal to remove the
homonymy not approved

OPINION 2032 (Case 3148). CLARIIDAE anileorey IMerkevicn & Sairidioney, 1990
(Rotifera): spelling emended to CLARIAIDAE so removing homonymy with
CLARUDAE Bonaparte, 1846 (Osteichthyes, Siluriformes) . :

OPINION 2033 (Case 3156). Chiton lepidus Reuss, 1860 (causally Meniabehiions
lepida; Mollusca, Polyplacophora): specific name conserved.

OPINION 2034 (Case 3087). Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821: conserved bby replacement
of the lectotype of Cyclostoma acutum Draparnaud, 1805 (currently Hydrobia
acuta; Mollusca, Gastropoda) with a neotype; Ventrosia Radoman, 1977: Turbo
ventrosus Montagu, 1803 designated as the type species; and HYDROBIINA Mulsant,
1844 (Coleoptera): spelling emended to HYDROBIUSINA, so removing the
homonymy with HypRoBIIDAE Troschel, 1857 (Gastropoda). F

OPINION 2035 (Case 3146). Valvata minuta Draparnaud, 1805 (quantity Haufenia
Neohoratia or Islamia minuta; Mollusca, oy: conserved by replacement
of the lectotype by a neotype :

OPINION 2036 (Case 3153). HIPPOPODIIDAE Con 1969 (Mollusca, Bivalvia): spalling
emended to HIPPOPODIUMIDAE, so removing the Sree with HIPPOPODIIDAE
KOlliker, 1853 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa) : no

OPINION 2037 (Cases 3120 and 3120a). LIOCHELIDAE Fet & Bechly: 2001 (1879)
(Scorpiones): adopted as a valid substitute name for ISCHNURIDAE Simon, 1879 in
order to remove homonymy with ISCHNURINAE Fraser, 1957 (Insecta, Odonata) .

OPINION 2038 (Case 3155). MACROTERMITINAE Kemner, 1934 (Insecta, Isoptera):
given precedence over ACANTHOTERMITINAE Sj6stedt, 1926 ae

OPINION 2039 (Case 3159). Staphylinus maculosus and S. violaceus Grrentornt
1802 (currently Platydracus maculosus and P. violaceus; Insecta, Coleoptera):
usage of the specific names conserved . 5 RS URecilersues Uae Mies

OPINION 2040 (Case 3190). Chlorops meigenii Leet, 1866 (Insecta, Resta
specific name conserved :

OPINION 2041 (Case 3081). Maiucita eahaadneapla Dene & Sauitiisamilion, 1775
(currently Gillmeria or Platyptilia ochrodactyla; Insecta, Lepidoptera): specific
name conserved by the designation of a neotype for Phalaena tetradactyla
Linnaeus, 1758 Peete in eameg tt meen MUA ten oes as

OPINION 2042 (Case 3160). Diaries petropolitana Dybowski, 1877 and
Diplotrypa petropolitana Nicholson, 1879 (Bryozoa): conserved : :

OPINION 2043 (Case 3113). Betta Bleeker, 1850 (Osteichthyes, Pereifonmes):
specific names conserved by the suppression of the generic and specific names
Micracanthus marchei Sauvage, 1879

OPINION 2044 (Case 3172). Leptodactylus orarspreroots Céi, 1950 (Amphibia, ‘Asay
specific name conserved !

OPINION 2045 (Case 3165). Pavesi anton Lydekker, 1885. (Reptilia,
Archosauria): lectotype replaced by a neotype Boe eM h ce cs

Information and Instructions for Authors

143

144

145

147

149

151

155

174

176

CONTENTS

Notices . ;

New Agplisnilons 5 ‘the Comerieson :

The International Commission on Zoological Momedelaere ;
The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature .

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature .

The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

The Commission’s website

Publications .

Funding appeal.

Applications

CLIONIDAE d’Orbigny, 1851 (Porifera, Hadromerida): proposed emendment of
spelling to CLIONAIDAE to remove homonymy with CLIONIDAE aK 1815
(Mollusca, Pteropoda). Philippe Bouchet & Klaus Ritzler . :

Lithasia Haldeman, 1840 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): Prono seine fon, uscolle
Minton & Arthur E. Bogan .

Melania curvicostata Reeve, 1861 and Keanibins pauper ie le "1862 (eitnend:
Elimia curvicostata and E. paupercula; Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conser-
vation by designation of a neotype for M. curvicostata. Fred G. Thompson &
Elizabeth L. Mihalcik . Re Spear, ae he ras eh 2 hey

Scorpio chilensis Molina, 1782 (currently Bothriurus chilensis; Arachnida,
Scorpiones): proposed suppression of the specific name. Luis E. Acosta & Camilo
I. Mattoni

Rhagodes Pocock, 1897 Gane Solifugae): seonasee aatseseon. Mark S.
Harvey .

TERMOPSIDAE uine oe 1911, Tornoe Hee 1349 ae Mepaiies Rocca 1913
(Insecta, Isoptera): proposed conservation of prevailing usage by the designation
of Termopsis bremii Heer, 1849 as the type species of Termopsis. Michael S. Engel.
Kumar Krishna & Christopher Boyko ; Pree Std,

Acmaeodera oaxacae Fisher, 1949 and Polycesta Heeo resi cae 1974 (Insecta,
Coleoptera): proposed precedence of the specific names over those of Acmaeodera
philippinensis Obenberger, 1924 and Polycesta aruensis Obenberger, 1924 respect-
ively. C. L. Bellamy & R. L. Westcott :

Aphodius niger Ulliger, 1798 (Insecta, Coleoptera): wer ased eposereeoe of the
specific name. Frank-Thorsten Krell, Darren J. Mann, Robert B. Angus & Jason
F. Mate

Lius Deyrolle, 1865 (eee ‘Clemson pagpasee. conservation. UG. f Salary

Colobodus Agassiz, 1844 (Osteichthyes, Perleidiformes): proposed designation of
C. bassanii de Alessandri, 1910 as the type species, with designation of a neotype.
Raoul J. Mutter

Lacepéde, B. G. E. de la v., 1788, ian Na orale Hs Quadruneres Ovpares
proposed rejection as a non- -binominal work. Jay M. Savage . :

Comments

Draft proposal to emend the Code with respect to trace fossils: pee for comments.
Markus Bertling et al.

On the neotypification of Prone egoseelt Giliass (ion Cliente) teh
Dragesco; Khaled A. S. AL-Rasheid

Page
93
93
94
95
95
95
96
96
97

99

103

109

113

117

119

124

127
132

135

138

141

143

Continued on Inside Back Cover

Printed in the United Kingdom by Henry Ling Limited, at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, DT] 1HD

The ;
Bulletin

or

Zoological —
Nomenclature

wa «>
on Zoological Nomenclature
WK eon

Or +

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

The Bulletin is published four times a year for the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, a
charity (no. 211944) registered in England. The annual subscription for 2003 is £123
or $220, postage included; individual subscribers for personal use are offered a
subscription of £61 or $110. All manuscripts, letters and orders should be sent to:

The Executive Secretary,

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,

c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road,

London, SW7 5BD, U.K. (Tel. 020 7942 5653)
(e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk)
(http://www.iczn.org)

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Officers

President
Vice-President
Executive Secretary

Members
Dr M. Alonso-Zarazaga
(Spain; Coleoptera)
Prof W. J. Bock (U.S.A.; Ornithalogy)
Prof Dr W. Bohme
(Germany; Amphibia, Reptilia)
Prof P. Bouchet (France; Mollusca)
Prof D. J. Brothers
(South Africa; Hymenoptera)
Dr D. R. Calder (Canada; Cnidaria)
Dr W. N. Eschmeyer
(U.S.A.; Ichthyology)
Dr N. L. Evenhuis (U.S.A.; Diptera)
Prof R. A. Fortey (U.K.; Trilobita)
Dr R. B. Halliday (Australia; Acari)
Dr I. M. Kerzhner (Russia; Heteroptera)
Prof Dr G. Lamas (Peru; Lepidoptera)
Dr E. Macpherson (Spain; Crustacea)

Secretariat

~

Dr N. L. Evenhuis (U.S. A.)
Dr W. N. Eschmeyer (U.S. A.)
Dr A. Wakeham-Dawson (U.K.)

Dr V. Mahnert
(Switzerland; Ichthyology)
Prof U. R. Martins de Souza
(Brazil; Coleoptera)
Prof S. F. Mawatari (Japan; Bryozoa)
Prof A. Minelli (/taly; Myriapoda)
Dr P. K. L. Ng (Singapore;
Crustacea, Ichthyology)
Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark; Bryozoa)
Dr L. Papp (Hungary; Diptera)
Prof D. J. Patterson (Australia; Protista)
Dr G. Rosenberg (U.S. A.; Mollusca)
Prof D. X. Song (China; Hirudinea)
Prof P. Stys
’ (Czech Republic; Heteroptera)
Mr J. van Tol
(The Netherlands; Odonata)

Dr A. Wakeham-Dawson (Executive Secretary and Bulletin Editor)

Mrs S. Morris (Zoologist)

Mr J. D. D. Smith (Scientific Administrator)
Dr P. K. Tubbs (Nomenclatural Consultant)

Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature

The Earl of Cranbrook (Chairman)

Dr M. K. Howarth (Secretary and Managing Director)

© International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 2003

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003 177

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCELAT

NOV 19 O00 sep bmber 2003

“iBRARIES

Volume 60, part 3 (pp. 177-260)

Notices

(1) Applications and correspondence relating to applications to the Commission
should be sent to the Executive Secretary at the address given on the inside of the
front cover. English is the official language of the Bulletin. Please take careful note of
instructions to authors (present in a one or two page form in each volume), as
incorrectly formatted applications will be returned to authors for revision. The
Commission’s Secretariat will answer general nomenclatural (as opposed to purely
taxonomic) enquiries and assist with the formulation of applications. As far as it
can, the Secretariat will check the main nomenclatural references in applications.
Correspondence should be by e-mail to iczn@nhm.ac.uk where possible.

(2) The Commission votes on applications six to eight months after they have been
published, although this period is normally extended to enable comments to be
submitted. Comments for publication relating to applications (either in support or
against, or offering alternative solutions) should be submitted as soon as possible.
Comments may be edited.

(3) Requests for help and advice on the Code can be made direct to the
Commission via the Internet. To register free of charge with the Commission’s
Discussion List send an e-mail to ‘join-iczn-list@lyris.bishopmuseum.org’, leaving
the subject line and body of the message blank (for further details see BZN 59: 234).

(4) The Commission also welcomes the submission of general-interest articles on
nomenclatural themes or nomenclatural notes on particular issues. These may deal
with taxonomy, but should be mainly nomenclatural in content. Articles and notes
should be sent to the Executive Secretary.

New applications to the Commission

The following new applications have been received since the last issue of the
Bulletin (volume 60, part 2, 30 June 2003) went to press. Under Article 82 of the
Code, existing usage of names in the applications is to be maintained until
the Commission’s rulings on the applications (the Opinions) have been published.

CASE 3278: Mus laniger Molina, 1782 and Eriomys chinchilla Lichtenstein, 1830
(currently Chinchilla lanigera and C. chinchilla; Mammalia, Rodentia): proposed
conservation of the specific names. Authors: J.P. Valladares & Angel Spotorno O.
(Chile).

CASE 3279: Curculio picipes Marsham, 1802 (currently Procas picipes; Insecta,
Coleoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name. Author: R.T. Thompson
(U.K.).

178 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003

CASE 3280: Melitaea nycteis Doubleday, 1847 (currently Chlosyne hycteis:
Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name by designation of
a neotype for Melitaea ismeria Boisduval & Le Conte, 1833. Authors: J.V. Calhoun,
L.D. Miller & J.Y. Miller (U.S.A.).

CASE 3281: Nahecaris Jaekel, 1921 (Malacostraca, Phyllocarida, Archaeostraca):
proposed precedence over Dilophaspis Traquair in Walther, 1903. Authors: D.E.G.
Briggs & C. Bartels (U.S.A. & Germany).

CASE 3282: Thecla azia Hewitson, 1873 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conser-
vation of the specific name. Authors: R.K. Robbins & G. Lamas (U.S.A. & Peru).

CASE 3283: Cetonia albopicta Gory & Percheron, 1833 (currently Trichostetha
albopicta) and Cetonia albopicta Motschulsky, 1845 (currently Oxythyrea albopicta;
Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of the specific names. Author: F.-T.
Krell (U.K.).

CASE 3284: Alpheus laeviusculus Lockington, 1878 (Crustacea, Decapoda): pro-
posed suppression of the specific name. Author: M.K. Wicksten (U.S.A.).

CASE 3285: Pemphigus Hartig, 1839 (Insecta, Hemiptera): proposed precedence
over Rhizobius Burmeister, 1835. Authors: J.M. Nieto Nafria, N. Pérez Hidalgo &
M.A. Alonso-Zarazaga (Spain).

CASE 3286: Thinobius crinifer Smetana, 1959 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed
conservation of the specific name. Author: M. Schiilke (Germany).

CASE 3287: LaBiDAE Burr, 1909 (Insecta, Dermaptera): proposed precedence over
ISOLABELLINAE Verhoeff, 1902. Author: M.S. Engel (U.S.A.).

CASE 3288: Nicrophorus tomentosus Weber, 1801 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed
conservation of the specific name. Authors: D.S. Sikes & S.T. Trumbo (U.S.A.).

CASE 3289: Emphania Erichson, 1847 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conserva-
tion of usage by designation of E. chloris Burmeister, 1855 as the type species.
Author: D. Ahrens (Germany).

CASE 3290: Platystrophia King, 1850 (Brachiopoda): proposed conservation, and
Porambonites costatus Pander, 1830 (currently Platystrophia costata): proposed
designation as the type species of Platystrophia with designation of a neotype.
Authors: M.A. Zuykov & D.A.T. Harper (Russia & Denmark).

CASE 3292: Nasutitermes Dudley, 1890, Microcerotermes Silvestri, 1901 and
NASUTITERMITINAE Hare, 1937 (Insecta, Isoptera): proposed conservation. Authors:
M.S. Engel & K. Krishna (U.S.A.).

CASE 3293: Nicrophorus olidus Matthews, 1888 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed
precedence over Nicrophorus quadricollis Gistel, 1848. Authors: D.S. Sikes & S.T.
Trumbo (U.S.A.).

CASE 3294: Triacanthagyna Selys, 1883 and Gynacantha Rambur, 1842 (Insecta,
Odonata): proposed conservation and designation of Gynacantha nervosa Rambur,
1842 as the type species. Authors: N. von Ellenrieder & R.W. Garrison (U.S.A.).

CASE 3295: Eterusia cingala Moore, 1977 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed
conservation of the specific name. Author: S.-H. Yen (U.K.).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003 179

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

The aim of the Commission is to bring stability to the use of animal names
(zoological nomenclature). The Commission does this by:

(a) producing, publishing and periodically revising the International Code of
Zoological Nomenclature (the Code), which deals with the formulation and use of
animal names;

(b) considering and ruling on specific cases of nomenclatural uncertainty and
dispute about animal names that are not automatically resolved under the
provisions of the Code, via applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological
Nomenclature.

The International Congress of Zoology founded the Commission in 1895. At
present, the Commission consists of 25 zoologists from 20 countries whose interests
cover most of the main divisions, including fossil animals (palaeontology), of the
animal kingdom. The Commission is under the auspices of the International Union
of Biological Sciences (IUBS). Commission members are elected by the vote of
zoologists attending General Assemblies of the IUBS or other appropriate con-
gresses. Nominations for membership may be sent to the Executive Secretary at any
time. The Commission’s history is described in Towards Stability in the Names of
Animals (1995). See below under ‘Publications’ for details. Further discussion of the
Commission’s activities can be found in BZN 48: 295—299 (December 1991) and BZN
60: supplement pp. 1-12 (March 2003).

The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature

The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature (the Trust) was founded to
manage the Commission’s financial matters in 1947. It is a registered charity, based
in the U.K. (No. 211944). At present, the Trust consists of 30 members from 14
countries. Discussion of the Trust’s activities can be found in BZN 60: supplement
pp. 1-12 (March 2003).

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature

The aim of the Code is to provide the greatest universality and continuity in the
scientific names of animals without restricting the taxonomy or classification of
the animals for which the names are used. The current (fourth edition) of the Code
was published by the Trust in 1999, and came into effect on 1 January 2000. This
edition supersedes all previous editions and official texts are available in English,
Chinese (traditional), French, German, Japanese, Russian, Spanish and Ukrainian.
Other translations (including Czech and Catalan) are in preparation. See below under
‘Publications’ for sales details.

The Articles of the Code enable the user to decide the valid name for any
animal taxon between and including subspecies and superfamily. The provisions
of the Code can be waived or modified in particular cases where strict adherence
would cause confusion. However, only the Commission, acting on behalf of all

180 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003

zoologists, can do this in response to formal applications that are published in
the Bulletin.

The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

The Bulletin is published four times each year. The Bulletin includes applications
relating to animal names, comments on applications and the Commission’s eventual
rulings based on the Commissioners’ votes (these are referred to as Opinions). Each
Opinion published in the Bulletin is an official ruling of the Commission and comes
into effect on the day of publication of the Bulletin. The Opinions are summarised in
the Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology. The Bulletin also
includes discussion papers on proposed emendations to the Code. See below under
‘Publications’ for how to subscribe to the Bulletin and for details about the Official
Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology.

The Commission’s website

Abstracts of applications and Opinions, and a record of the names included in
the Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology, are posted on the
Commission’s website (www.iczn.org). It is planned for this website to be extensively
revised in the near future.

Publications

All publications listed below may be ordered from: ITZN, c/o The Natural History
Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). With
the exception of the Bulletin (which can only be ordered from ITZN), these
publications can also be ordered from the American Association for Zoological
Nomenclature (AAZN), Attn. D.G. Smith, MRC-159, National Museum of Natural
History, Washington, D.C. 20560-0159, U.S.A. (e-mail: smith.davidg@nmnh.si.edu).
Prices listed below include surface postage. Please add £2 or $3 if you require postage
by Airmail. Please send payment with orders. Cheques should be made out to ‘ITZN”
(in sterling or dollars) or to “AAZN° (in dollars only). Visa or MasterCard payments
can be made to ITZN (but not AAZN). Please give cardholder’s name, address, card
number and card expiry date when ordering.

The Bulletin subscription for 2003 is £123 or US$220, including postage by
accelerated surface post. Individual subscribers for personal use have a 50% discount
making the subscription £61 or US$110.

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (4th Edition, 1999: ISBN
0 85301 006 4; English and French in one volume) is available at £40 or US$65,
including surface postage. Individual purchasers who are buying the Code for
personal use are offered a 25% discount (£30 or US$48), as are institutions or agents
buying five or more copies. Individual members of the American or European
Associations for Zoological Nomenclature are offered a discount of 40% (price $39

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003 181

or £24). Information about the prices and availability of the authorised translations
of the Code can be obtained from the following e-mail addresses:
Chinese (traditional) — wenhua@oceantaiwan.com
German — books@insecta.de
Japanese — tomokuni@kahaku.go.jp
Russian — kim@1k3599.spb.edu
Spanish — menaz39@muncn.csic.es
Ukrainian — ypnekrut@mbat.freenet.kiev.ua
The Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology gives details of all
the names and publications on which the Commission has ruled since it was set up in
1895. The first volume published in 1987 contains 9917 entries, and a Supplement
(2001) lists an additional 2385 entries. The cost of the 1987 volume and of the
Supplement is £60 or US$110 each, with reductions for both volumes ordered
together and for individual buyers for personal use. Details available on request.
Towards Stability in the Names of Animals — a History of the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1895-1995 was published in 1995 in
recognition of ICZN’s Centenary. This book (104 pages) contains 18 full-page
illustrations, 14 being of eminent zoologists who played a crucial part in the
development of animal nomenclature. The cost is £30 or US$50.

Funding appeal

The Convention on Biological Diversity was adopted in Rio (1992) and its
objectives were reinforced in Johannesburg (2002). As a result, international,
regional, and local governments now recognise the need to underpin their sustain-
ability policies with inventories of current biological diversity. About 2 million of the
earth’s living-organisms have been formally named since the time of Linnaeus. By the
best estimates, over 13 million others remain to be described and named. This
massive task will rely on expanded IT capabilities, and the development of new
IT-based systems and procedures.

The Commission will be a key player in these initiatives. With the new urgency to
identify and catalogue life on earth, the Commission’s continuing task will be to
provide the secure animal naming system that underpins zoological taxonomy,
biodiversity science, and all other applications of zoological taxonomy. The Com-
mission must now. invest in skilled staff and the necessary computer equipment to
fulfil its unique responsibilities and keep pace with emerging IT-based identification
and naming practices.

The Trust seeks to establish an endowment fund to provide lasting financial
security for the Commission’s vital work. The appeal was formally launched at the
20th Pacific Science Congress in Bangkok, 17-21 March 2003. The appeal is now
being extended worldwide. Accompanying the March 2003 issue of the Bulletin was
a supplement (BZN 60: supplement pp. 1-12; March 2003) and a leaflet outlining the
background to and aims of the appeal. Further copies of both documents are
available from the Executive Secretary. The Trust urges all those with the necessary
resources to assist in the establishment of an endowment fund that will ensure the
continuation and development of the Commission’s essential work. All levels of
support are greatly appreciated and make an impact.

182 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003

Case 3245

Hastigerinella Cushman, 1927 and Clavigerinella Bolli, Loeblich &
Tappan, 1957 (Rhizopoda, Foraminiferida): proposed conservation of
the usage by designation of Hastigerina digitata Rhumbler, 1911 as
the type species of Hastigerinella

Helen Coxall

School of Ocean and Earth Science, University of Southampton,
Southampton Oceanography Centre, European Way, Southampton
SO14 3ZH, U.K. (e-mail: hkc@soc.soton.ac.uk)

Abstract. The purpose of this application, in relation to Articles 11.10, 49 and 67.13
of the Code, is to conserve the widespread usage of the generic names Hastigerinella
Cushman, 1927 for a group of extant planktonic foraminifera and Clavigerinella
Bolli, Loeblich & Tappan, 1957 for a group of fossil foraminifera by designating
Hastigerina digitata Rhumbler, 1911 as the type species of Hastigerinella. Rhumbler
(1911) had, by misidentification, used the specific name of Globigerina digitata Brady,
1879 for his taxon. As a result of this misuse of the name, some authors have argued
that Hastigerinella eocanica Nuttall, 1928 is the valid type species of Hastigerinella.
However, acceptance of this view would confuse the accepted meaning of Hastige-
rinella and Clavigerinella.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Foraminifera; HASTIGERININAE; Hastigerinella;
Clavigerinella; Hastigerina digitata; Clavigerinella akersi.

1. In 1879 (p. 599), Henry Brady described the living planktonic foraminiferal
species Globigerina digitata collected during the H.M.S. Challenger Expedition.
Although no illustrations were included with the original description, accurate
illustrations of G. digitata showing its distinctive finger-like (digitate) final chambers
were presented in a later report (Brady, 1884, pl. 80, figs. 6-10; pl. 82, figs. 6, 7). The
illustrations included two different digitate morphotypes, which are now widely
regarded as being distinct species. These are now referred to as Globigerina digitata
Brady, 1879 (currently Beella digitata) (see Brady, 1884, pl. 80, figs. 6-10) and
Globigerinella adamsi (Banner & Blow, 1959) (p. 13) (see Brady, 1884, pl. 82,
figs. 6, 7).

2. In 1895 Ludwig Rhumbler (p. 94) published a taxonomic revision in which he
transferred the nominal species Globigerina digitata Brady, 1879 to the genus
Hastigerina Thompson, 1876 (p. 534). Hastigerina (type species Hastigerina pelagica
(d’Orbigny, 1839) (p. 27)) has a very different shell wall structure to all other
planktonic foraminifera and H. digitata Rhumbler is one of the few other described
species that exhibits the same unusual wall texture. In 1911 (pp. 163, 202), Rhumbler
described and illustrated living foraminifera collected during the Humboldt
Plankton-Expedition, including Hastigerina digitata. He did not cite any authorship
of the name digitata. A copy of unpublished plate explanations for Rhumbler’s 1911

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003 183

work was presented as an anonymous note in an edition of The Micropaleontologist
(Anonymous, 1949), copied from an original manuscript held in the library of the
Zoological Institute, University of Géttingen, Germany, by Dr Otto Wetzel. This
material indicated that Rhumbler considered his forms to be two new varieties of
Hastigerina digitata (Brady, 1879). Another copy of the manuscript, which was
presented to Edward Heron-Allen in 1928 by Rhumbler himself, is held in the
Heron-Allen Library at The Natural History Museum, London. I have examined this
manuscript and can confirm that Rhumbler had intended to use Brady’s name
Hastigerina digitata. However, Rhumbler’s figured fossil specimens show a different
shell ultrastructure to those of Brady’s living specimens. In fact, H. digitata sensu
Rhumbler, 1911 represents a digitate homeomorph that is closely related to the
Recent species Hastigerina pelagica (d’Orbigny, 1839) and is clearly unrelated to
Beella digitata (Brady, 1879). It is evident that Rhumbler (1911) misapplied Brady’s
name digitata.

3. In 1927 (p. 87), Cushman established the genus Hastigerinella and designated
Hastigerina digitata Rhumbler, 1911 as the type species (he used the incorrect spelling
‘Hasterigerina’ digitata in the type species designation). Many workers have since
based their concepts of the genus on this definition (e.g. Bolli, Loeblich & Tappan,
1957; Bradshaw, 1959; Banner & Blow, 1959; Blow, 1979; Boll & Saunders, 1985;
Hemleben et al., 1989). Following traditions of uniting species of foraminifera with
similar morphologies in the same genus irrespective of stratigraphic occurrence, the
concept of Hastigerinella was later enlarged to include fossil species from the Eocene
(Hastigerinella eocanica Nuttall, 1928 (p. 376), H. jarvisi Cushman, 1930, H. eocanica
var. aragonensis Nuttall, 1930, H. colombiana Petters, 1954, H. caucasica Subbotina,
1958) and from the Cretaceous (H. watersi Cushman, 1931, H. alexanderi Cushman,
1931, H. simplex Morrow, 1934, H. biozonae Chevalier, 1961) and Miocene: H.
bermudezi Bolli, 1957 (currently Clavatorella bermudezi). However, Cushman (1930)
still emphasized that the original concept of the genus was based upon Rhumbler’s
living material.

4. Bolli, Loeblich & Tappan, 1957 (p. 30) described a new digitate genus
Clavigerinella from the Eocene of Trinidad and designated C. akersi Bolli, Loeblich
& Tappan, 1957 (p. 30) as the type species. Bolli (1957, p. 162) in the same volume
discussed the similarity of C. akersi to species of Hastigerinella described from the
Eocene. Accordingly, he placed H. jarvisi Cushman, 1930 (p. 18) in Clavigerinella and
indicated that H. eocanica Nuttall, 1928 also belonged in that genus. Many later
authors (e.g. Banner & Blow (1959, p. 10), Blow (1979, p. 1199), Toumarkine &
Luterbacher (1985, p. 119), Banner (1982), Pearson (1993, p. 219) and Coxall et al.
(in press)) have adopted Bolli’s (1957) view that the Eocene digitate species are
congeneric, and include them all in Clavigerinella. However, not all authors have
followed this approach and some continue to separate Hastigerinella eocanica from
Clavigerinella (see Saito, Thompson & Breger, 1976; Loeblich & Tappan, 1988).
Based on detailed morphological and stratigraphical studies I conclude that the
Eocene digitate forms share many derived features, are stratigraphically contiguous
and are therefore probably phylogenetically related. Thus, I strongly support the
view that they are congeneric and should be united in Clavigerinella.

5. Galloway (1933) attempted a revision of the taxonomy of Hastigerinella. Banner
& Blow (1960) reviewed the subfamily HASTIGERININAE. The latter authors were

184 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003

unable to locate Rhumbler’s original specimens but based on examination of new
material from the Atlantic Ocean confirmed that the morphotype had distinctive
‘hastigerinid’ morphology, as portrayed in Rhumbler’s (1911) illustrations. The
authors selected a suite of ‘hypotypes’ (p. 25) (Natural History Museum, London
Cat. nos. BMNH 1959.5.11.742 and 1959.5.11.744-746): one of these was later
designated as the neotype of Hastigerina digitata Rhumbler, 1911 (Hastigerinella
digitata) by Banner (1965, p. 115; see para. 9 below).

6. In 1963 (p. 228) Charmatz disputed the status of Hastigerina digitata
Rhumbler, 1911 as the type species of Hastigerinella, claiming the genus to be
‘without a type species at the time of publication’ in 1927. Charmatz proposed
that the second nominal species that had been included in Hastigerinella, the
Eocene species Hastigerinella eocanica Nuttall, 1928 (currently Clavigerinella
eocanica), should automatically become the type species of the genus by subsequent
monotypy.

7. In response to Charmatz’s article, Loeblich & Tappan (1964, p. 494) argued that
Charmatz’s conclusions were ‘strongly at variance’ with the Code. Loeblich &
Tappan (1964) claimed that the type species of the genus Hastigerinella was validly
designated by Cushman, 1927 as Hastigerina digitata Rhumbler, 1911 with explicit
reference to the original figures and publication. They concluded that later workers
were formally correct in assuming this to have been proposed as a new nominal
species, since it is not clear from Rhumbler’s inadequately annotated and referenced
publication that another author (i.e. Brady, 1879) was responsible for the specific
name Hastigerina digitata.

8. In response, Charmatz (1964, p. 496) vehemently defended his earlier work,
maintaining that Hastigerina digitata Rhumbler, 1911 was ‘taxonomically non
existent’. Nevertheless, in an effort to stabilize the nomenclature Charmatz said that
he would apply to the Commission for resolution of the situation. There is no record
of this action having been taken.

9. Banner (1965) made an informal case for acceptance of Hastigerina digitata
Rhumbler, 1911 as a valid nominal species under the Code. Contrary to Charmatz, he
argued, ‘even if the authorship of Hastigerina digitata be denied to Rhumbler (1911),
the fact that Cushman proposed the new genus Hastigerinella with Hastigerina
digitata Rhumbler, 1911 as its type species would be sufficient to validate the
species name’. At the same time, he designated (p. 115) a neotype for Hastigerina
digitata Rhumbler, 1911 (see Banner & Blow, 1960, figs. 8a-c; BMNH Cat. no.
1959.5.11.744), having established that the original syntype suite was lost. In the
same publication, Banner also suggested that this difficult case would be well served
by an appeal to the Commission, but again no such action was taken (M. Fadel and
F.T. Banner, pers. comm.).

10. The nomenclatural status of Hastigerina digitata Rhumbler, 1911 was again
disputed by Saito, Thompson & Breger (1976). Following Charmatz’s arguments,
Saito et al. contended that Rhumbler’s (1911) misleading citation rendered the name
and nominal species ‘non existent’. They concluded that Hastigerinella was ‘without
a type species’ at the time of publication and deemed Hastigerinella eocanica Nuttall,
1928 the type species of the genus by subsequent monotypy. However, Saito et al.
(1976, p. 285) agreed that Rhumbler’s 1911 form represented a distinct morphotype
that was clearly unrelated to Globigerina digitata Brady, 1879. They gave the entirely

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003 185

new name Hastigerinopsis digitiformans Saito & Thompson (p. 285) to Rhumbler’s
taxon using Banner’s (1965) neotype of “Hastigerina digitata Rhumbler, 1911’ (see
para. 9 above) as the holotype.

11. In the most recent treatment of extant planktonic foraminifera Hemleben et al.
(1989) presented a classification based upon details of wall texture and spine
morphology, features that are believed to most closely reflect phylogenetic and
biological affinities. In this work, the nominal species Hastigerina digitata Rhumbler,
1911 is classified together with Hastigerina pelagica (d’Orbigny, 1839) under the
heading “Hastigerinids with triradiate spines’. Christoph Hemleben (pers. comm.) has
commented recently that the ultrastructure of H. digitata is identical to that of
H. pelagica, suggesting a very close evolutionary relationship between the two, and
he argues for inclusion of H. digitata within Hastigerina, as was originally intended
by Rhumbler (1911).

12. Charmatz’s (1963, 1964) and Saito et al.’s (1976) type species proposals invoke
a major shift in the concept of Hastigerinella from being a taxon representing Recent
digitate forms with a distinctive Hastigerina-like wall and triradiate spines to Eocene
fossils, that probably possessed rounded spines, have an entirely different wall
structure and mode of coiling and a disjunct stratigraphic occurrence. Moreover, it
calls into question the taxonomic status of the genus Clavigerinella Bolli, Loeblich &
Tappan, 1957 (see para. 4 above). If, as proposed by Charmatz (1963), the type
species of Hastigerinella is not the modern hastigerinid Hastigerina digitata (as was
implied by Cushman) but the Eocene Hastigerinella eocanica and, as is widely
believed, all the Eocene digitate forms are congeneric, Clavigerinella would become a
Junior synonym of Hastigerinella. This would cause extreme confusion in the current
understanding of both Hastigerinella Cushman, 1927 and Clavigerinella Bolli,
Loeblich & Tappan, 1957 as used throughout the literature (e.g. Blow, 1979; Kennett
& Srinivasan, 1983; Bolli & Saunders, 1985; Toumarkine & Luterbacher, 1985;
Loeblich & Tappan, 1987; Hemleben et al., 1989).

13. In agreement with Loeblich & Tappan (1964) and Banner (1965, 1982), I reject
Charmatz’s (1963, 1964) and Saito et al.’s (1976) conclusion that the original type
species of Hastigerinella (i.e. Hastigerina digitata Rhumbler, 1911) is invalid under
the Code. However, as previous attempts to resolve this case merely by discussion
and reference to relevant articles of the Code have failed, I bring this application to
the Commission for a formal resolution. Maintenance of the current widespread
usage of both Hastigerinella Cushman, 1927 and Clavigerinella Bolli, Loeblich &
Tappan, 1957 can be achieved by accepting that Hastigerina digitata Rhumbler, 1911
is the type species of Hastigerinella, in accordance with the view of Banner & Blow
(1959), Banner (1982) and Hemleben et al. (1989).

14. It might perhaps be held, under Articles 11.10 and 67.13, that there is a nominal
species Hastigerinella digitata Cushman, 1927, and that this is the type species of
Hastigerinella. However, this ‘new’ authorship would cause unnecessary confusion. It
is also necessary to protect the specific name digitata Rhumbler, 1911 from the
operation of Article 49 of the Code, since digitata Brady, 1879 had been applied to
the taxon by misidentification.

15. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:

(1) to use its plenary power to rule that the name digitata Rhumbler, 1911,

as published in the binomen Hastigerina digitata, is deemed to be the

186 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003

specific name of a then-new nominal species and is not to be treated as a

misidentification of Globigerina digitata Brady, 1879;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names:

(a) Hastigerinella Cushman, 1927 (gender: feminine), type species by original
designation Hastigerina digitata Rhumbler, 1911;

(b) Clavigerinella Bolli, Loeblich & Tappan, 1957 (gender: feminine), type
species by original designation Clavigerinella akersi Bolli, Loeblich &
Tappan, 1957;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:

(a) digitata Rhumbler, 1911, as published in the binomen Hastigerina digitata
and as defined by the neotype cited in para. 9 above and ruled in (1) above
to be deemed to be the specific name ofa then-new nominal species (specific
name of the type species of Hastigerinella Cushman, 1927);

(b) akersi Bolli, Loeblich & Tappan, 1957, as published in the binomen
Clavigerinella akersi (specific name of the type species of Clavigerinella
Bolli, Loeblich & Tappan, 1957).

Acknowledgements

Thanks to John Whittaker and Andrew eGinonon at The Natural History
Museum, London, for useful discussion and assistance in locating type material and
literature. Thanks also for discussions and input on taxonomic issues from Christoph
Hemleben (University of Tiibingen), Mike Thurston (Southampton Oceanography
Centre), Andrew Wakeham-Dawson and Philip Tubbs (ICZN), Paul Pearson
(University of Bristol) and Brian Huber (Smithsonian Institution National Museum
of Natural History, Washington D.C.). In addition, I am grateful to Marcel Fadeax
for encouragement to proceed with my investigation, which builds on the earlier
work of Helen Loeblich, Alfred Tappan and Fred Banner.

References

Anonymous. 1949, Plate explanations of Rhumbler’s “Plankton-Expedition’. The Micropaleon-
tologist, 2: 33-40.

Banner, F.T. 1965. On Hastigerinella digjtata (Rhumbler, 1911). Micropaleontology, 5:
114-116.

Banner, F.T. 1982. A classification and introduction to the Globigerinacea. Pp. 142-239 in
Banner, F.T. & Lord, A.R. (Eds.), Aspects of Micropalaeontology. Allen & Unwin,
London.

Banner, F.T. & Blow, W.H. 1959. The classification and stratigraphical distribution of the
Globigerinaceae. Palaeontology, 2: 1-27.

Banner, F.T. & Blow, W.H. 1960. The taxonomy, morphology and affinities of the genera
included in the subfamily Hastigerininae. Micropaleontology, 6: 19-31.

Blow, W.H. 1979. The Cainozoic Globigerinida. A study of the morphology, taxonomy,
evolutionary relationships and the stratigraphical distribution of some of the Gobigerinida
(mainly Globigerinacea). 3 vols. 1413 pp. Brill, Leiden.

Bolli, H.M., Loeblich, A.R. & Tappan, H. 1957. Planktonic foraminiferal families Hantkeni-
nidae, Orbulinidae, Globorotalidae and Globotruncanidae. Pp. 3-50 in Loeblich, A.R.,
Tappan, H., Beckmann, J.P., Bolli, H.M., Montanaro Gallitelli, E. & Troelsen, J.C.
(Eds.), Studies in foraminifera. United States National Museum Bulletin, Smithsonian
Institution no. 215. Washington D.C.

Bolli, H.M. & Saunders, J.B. 1985. Oligocene to Holocene low latitude planktonic Foraminif-
era. Pp. 155-262 in Bolli, H.M., Saunders, J.B. & Perch-Nielsen, K. (Eds.), Plankton
stratigraphy. Cambridge University Press, U.K.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003 187

Bradshaw, J.S. 1959. Ecology of living planktonic Foraminifera in the North and Equatorial
Pacific Ocean. Cushman Foundation of Foraminiferal Research Contributions, 10: 25-64.

Brady, H.B. 1879. Notes on some reticularian Rhizopoda of the Challenger Expedition; II.
Addition to the knowledge of porcellanous and hyaline types. Quarterly Journal of the
Microscopical Society, 19: 261-299.

Brady, H.B. 1884. Report on the Foraminifera dredged by H.M.S. Challenger, during the years
1873-1876. Report on the scientific results of the voyage of H.M.S. Challenger, Zoology,
vol. 9. 814 pp. Longmans, London.

Charmatz, R. 1963. On ‘Hastigerina digitata Rhumbler, 1911. Micropaleontology, 9: 228.

Charmatz, R. 1964. On ‘Hastigerina digitata Rhumbler, 1911’: Reply. Micropaleontology, 10:
496.

Coxall, H.K., Huber, B.T. & Pearson, P.N. In press. Origin and morphology of the Eocene
planktonic Foraminifera Hantkenina. Journal of Foraminiferal Research.

Cushman, J.A. 1927. An outline of a re-classification of the Foraminifera. Cushman Laboratory
of Foraminiferal Research Contributions, 3: 1-105.

Cushman, J.A. 1930. Fossil species of Hastigerinella. Cushman Laboratory of Foraminiferal
Research Contributions, 6: 17-79.

Galloway, J.J. 1933. A manual of Foraminifera. 42 pp. Principia Press, Indiana.

Hemleben, C., Spindler, M. & Anderson, O.R. 1989. Modern planktonic Foraminifera. 363 pp.
Springer-Verlag, New York.

Kennett, J.P. & Srinivasan, M.S. 1983. Neogene planktonic Foraminifera. 263 pp. Hutchinson
Ross, Pennsylvania.

Loeblich, A.R. & Tappan, H. 1964. On ‘Hastigerina digitata Rhumbler, 1911’: comment,
Micropaleontology, 10: 494-495.

Loeblich, A.R. & Tappan, H. 1988. Foraminiferal genera and their classification, 2 volumes.
Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.

Nuttall, W.L.F. 1928. Notes on the Tertiary Foraminifera of southern Mexico. Journal of
Paleontology, 2: 372-376.

Pearson, P.N. 1993. A lineage phylogeny for the Paleogene planktonic Foraminifera.
Micropaleontology, 39: 193-232.

Rhumbler, L. 1895. Entwurf eines nattirlichen Systemes der Thalamophoren. K. Ges. Wiss.
Gottingen, Math.-Phys. Kl, 1: 37-41.

Rhumbler, L. 1911. Die Foraminiferen (Thalamophoren) der Plankton-Expedition. Teil 1. Die
allgemeinen Organisationsverhaltnisse der Foraminiferen, Plankton Expedition Humbold-
Stiftung, Ergeben 3. 331 pp.

Saito, T., Thompson, P.R. & Breger, D. 1976. Skeletal ultramicrostructure of some elongate-
chambered planktonic Foraminifera and related species. Pp. 278-304 in Takayanagi, Y. &
Saito, T. (Eds.), Progress in micropaleontology; selected papers in honor of Prof. Kiyoshi
Asano. Micropaleontology Press, New York.

Toumarkine, M. & Luterbacher, H. 1985. Paleocene and Eocene planktonic Foraminifera.
Pp. 87-154 in Saunders, B. & Perch-Nielsen, J.B. (Eds.), Plankton stratigraphy.
Cambridge University Press, U.K.

Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 59: 161.

Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).

188 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003

Case 3260

Titanodamon johnstonii Pocock, 1894 (currently Damon johnstonit;
Arachnida, Amblypygi): proposed conservation of the specific name

Peter Weygoldt
Institut fiir Biologie I, Albert-Ludwigs- Universitat, Hauptstrasse 1, D-79104
Freiburg, Germany (e-mail: peter.weygoldt@biologie.uni-freiburg.de)

Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to
conserve the widely used specific name Titanodamon johnstonii Pocock, 1894
(currently Damon johnstonii; famity PHRYNICHIDAE) for a species of whip spider
(Amblypygi) by suppressing its senior synonym D. australis Simon, 1886, that has
been used doubtfully only once.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Amblypygi; PHRYNICHIDAE; Damon; Damon
Johnstonii; whip spiders.

1. Pocock (1894, p. 289) introduced the generic name Titanodamon (type species by
original designation the new species 7. johnstonii) for three new West African whip
spider (Amblypygi) species (family PHRYNICHIDAE) and described 7. johnstonii (pp.
291-292) on the basis of a number of specimens from rainforests of Nigeria, the
mountains of Cameroon, Fernando Po and Gabon. The designated holotype, an
adult male from Rio del Rez near Old Calabar (Nigeria), is deposited in The Natural
History Museum, London (accession no. BMNH 1890.3.18.3).

2. Simon (1886, pp. 575-576) described Damon australis from a small specimen
allegedly from ‘Santa Cruz de Patagonia’. The specimen is deposited in the Museum
National d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris (without number and not marked as a type
specimen). It clearly is an immature specimen of 7. johnstonii. No other similar
specimen has been recorded from South America since, and it is virtually certain that
the neotropical locality is erroneous (see Weygoldt, 1999).

3. Kraepelin (1895, pp. 14-17) recognized only one species of Titanodamon to be
valid, and he treated 7. johnstonii as a subspecies of 7. medius (Herbst, 1797) i.e. as
T. medius johnstonii Pocock. On p. 19 of the same paper, he erroneously considered
Damon australis to be a junior synonym of D. variegatus (Perty, 1834). However, in
1899 Kraepelin included the genus Titanodamon in Damon C.L. Koch, 1850 and
considered Damon johnstonii to be a valid species.

4. Subsequent authors (e.g. Fage, 1939, p. 110; Fage, 1954, pp. 181-182; Lawrence,
1969, pp. 85-86) either retained the generic name 7itanodamon only for T. johnstonii
or followed Kraepelin (1899) in considering Titanodamon to be a junior synonym of
Damon (e.g. Quintero, 1976).

5. The name 7. australis (Simon, 1886) has been used only once (tentatively) by
Fage (1939, p. 110). He discussed the possibility that it could represent a second
species of Titanodamon, but he also said that it ‘s'agit malheureusement d°un

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003 189

exemplaire jeune qui posséde incontestablement tous les attributs du genre, mais qu'il
est impossible de caractériser spécifiquement’.

6. In contrast, Pocock’s (1894) specific name T. johnstonii has been used by all the
authors cited above for the large and conspicuous West African species that is found
between south-eastern Nigeria and Gabon. Further, all the identified West African
specimens from various museums that I have studied are labelled Damon johnstonii.
Although T. australis is a slightly older name than 7. johnstonii, it has been used only
once (and then doubtfully; see para. 5 above) and is based on one juvenile specimen
attributed to the wrong continent. As a result, it would be destabilizing to adopt it in
place of T. johnstonii even though it has priority.

7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to use its plenary power to suppress the name australis Simon, 1886, as
published in the binomen Damon australis, for the purposes of the Principle of
Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy;

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name johnstonii
Pocock, 1894, as published in the binomen Titanodamon johnstonii (specific
name of the type species of Titanodamon Pocock, 1894):

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in
Zoology the name australis Simon, 1886, as published in the binomen Damon
australis and as suppressed 1n (1) above.

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Dr. Paul Hillyard (The Natural History Museum, London) and to
Dr. Jacqueline Heurtault (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris) for the
opportunity to study the type specimens and many other specimens of the genus
Damon, and to Prof. Dr. Otto Kraus for stimulating discussions and advice. The
study was supported by a grant from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.

References

Fage, L. 1939. Sur une phryne du sud Marocain pourvue dun appareil stridulant,
Musicodamon atlanteus, nov. gen., nov. sp. Bulletin de la Société Zoologique de France, 64:
100-114.

Fage, L. 1954. Remarques sur la distribution géographique des Peédipalpes Amblypyges
africains, accompagnées de la description d’une espéce nouvelle de Madagascar: Charinus
madagascariensis, nov. sp. Annales du Musée Royal du Congo Belge (Tervuren), Zoology,
1: 180-184.

Kraepelin, K. 1895. Revision der Tarantuliden Fabr. (= Phryniden Latr.). Abhandlungen aus
dem Gebiet der Naturwissenschaften, Naturwissenschaftlicher Verein Hamburg, 13: \—S3.

Kraepelin, K. 1899. Pedipalpi. Pp. 201-265 in Kraepelin, K. (Ed.), Das Tierreich, vol. 8
Scorpiones und Pedipalpi. Friedlander, Berlin.

Lawrence, R.F. 1969. A collection of African Amblypygi with keys to the subfamilies, genera
and species of the Ethiopian fauna. Revue de Zoologie et de Botanique Africaines, 80(1—2):
80-87.

Pocock, R.I. 1894. Notes on the Pedipalpi of the family Tarantulidae contained in the
collection of the British Museum. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (6)14:
273-298.

Quintero, D. 1976. Trichodamon Mello-Letao and the Damonidae, new family status
(Amblypygi, Arachnida). Bulletin of the British Arachnological Society, 3(8): 222-227.

190 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003

Simon, E. 1886. Arachnides recueillées en 1882-1883 dans la Patagonie méridionale, de
Santa-Cruz a Punta-Arena, par M.E. Leburn, attaché comme naturaliste a la mission du
passage de Vénus. Bulletin de la Société zoologique de France, 11: 558-577.

Weygoldt, P. 1999. Revision of the genus Damon C.L. Koch, 1850 (Chelicerata: Amblypygi:
Phrynichidae). Zoologica (Stuttgart), 150: 145

Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 60: 1.

Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Budletin: they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., clo The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003 19]

Case 3256

Leptusa Kraatz, 1856 and Cyllopisalia Pace, 1982 (Insecta,
Coleoptera): proposed conservation

Vladimir I. Gusarov

Division of Entomology, Natural History Museum, University of Kansas,
Lawrence, KS 66045-7523, U.S.A. and Department of Entomology,

St. Petersburg State University, Universitetskaya nab. 7/9, St. Petersburg
199034, Russia (e-mail: vlad@ku.edu)

Lee H. Herman

Division of Invertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History,
Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, NY 10024-5192, U.S.A.
(e-mail: herman@amnh.org)

Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to
conserve the generic name Leptusa Kraatz, 1856 and subgeneric name Cyllopisalia
Pace, 1982 for a widespread group of rove beetles (family STAPHYLINIDAE). Both
names are threatened by limited usage of a senior synonym, Sipalia Mulsant & Rey,
1853. The use of Sipalia in place of Leptusa causes great confusion because from
1909 to 1974 most authors used the name Sipalia for the rove beetle genus now
known as Geostiba Thomson, 1858. It is proposed that the name Sipalia should be
suppressed.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; STAPHYLINIDAE; ALEOCHARINAE;
Leptusa; Cyllopisalia; Geostiba; Bolitochara pulchella; Aleochara circellaris; rove
beetles.

1. Mulsant & Rey (1853, p. 32) described Sipalia (family STAPHYLINIDAE) as a
subgenus of Homalota Mannerheim, 1830, and included six rove beetle species. Three
of these, including Homalota difformis Mulsant & Rey, 1853 (p. 33), are now placed
in Leptusa Kraatz, 1856 (p. 60), two are in Geostiba Thomson, 1858 (p. 33), and one
is in Octavius Fauvel, 1873. They did not designate a type species for Sipalia.

2. Kraatz (1856, p. 60) described the genus Leptusa for eleven nominal species
(among them ‘Leptusa analis Gyllenhal, 1810’ (p. 388) and Homalota (Sipalia)
difformis Mulsant & Rey, 1853), but did not designate a type species. Thomson (1859,
p. 32) designated ‘Leptusa analis Gyllenhal, 1810’ as the type species of Leptusa, but
this is an unavailable name and a misidentification of Bolitochara pulchella Manner-
heim, 1830 (see Pope, 1977, p. 34) and Thomson’s designation was thus invalid.
Bolitochara pulchella Mannerheim, 1830 (p. 83) has been designated as the type
species of Leptusa Kraatz, 1856 under Article 70.3.2 (see Gusarov & Herman, 2003).
Pace (1983, p. 57) had earlier but invalidly cited B. pulchella as the type species of
Leptusa.

192 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003

3. Thomson (1859, p. 40) designated Homalota brachyptera Thomson, 1852 as the
type species of Sipalia, but this designation is invalid because this nominal species was
not originally included in the genus (see Article 67.2.1).

4. Fauvel (1902a, p. 40) validly designated Homalota difformis Mulsant & Rey,
1853 (p. 33) as the type species of Sipalia Mulsant & Rey, 1853. However, as
Homalota difformis was already a member of Leptusa (see Kraatz, 1856, p. 66;
Bernhauer, 1900, p. 420), Fauvel used Sipalia (1853) instead of Leptusa (1856) as the
senior synonym (see Fauvel, 1902b, p. 158).

5. Evidently most workers overlooked Fauvel’s type designation for Sipalia. The
name Leptusa continued to be used for the genus that included Homalota difformis,
the type species of Sipalia (see Bernhauer, 1905, p. 250; Reitter, 1909, p. 80;
Bernhauer & Scheerpeltz, 1926, p. 553; Scheerpeltz, 1966, p. 18; and in at least 72
other works by 25 authors before 1974). At the same time the name Sipalia was
used for the genus now known as Geostiba Thomson, 1858 (p. 33) (type species by
monotypy: Aleochara circellaris Gravenhorst, 1806 (p. 155) (see Sainte-Claire
Deville, 1906, p. 127; Reitter, 1909, p. 45; Bernhauer & Scheerpeltz, 1926, p. 599;
Scheerpeltz, 1934, p. 1585; and in at least 56 works by 20 authors from 1909 to 1974).

6. Lohse (1974, p. 42) and Benick & Lohse (1974, p. 111) directed attention to the
synonymy of Sipalia and Leptusa and acknowledged that the former had priority
over the latter, but nevertheless used Leptusa, not Sipalia, as the valid name. Their
reason for this was to avoid confusion with Geostiba Thomson, 1858, which had been
referred to incorrectly as Sipalia for nearly 70 years. Most staphylinid workers
accepted this approach, even though it was not valid under the Code.

7. Scheerpeltz (1966, p. 18) described Parapisalia as a subgenus of Leptusa Kraatz,
1856 and designated Homalota difformis Mulsant & Rey, 1853 (p. 33) as the type
species. However, this name is a junior objective synonym of Sipalia and a junior
homonym of Parapisalia Scheerpeltz, 1948 (p. 159) (type species: Leptusa puellaris
Hampe, 1863 by original designation). It would appear that in 1966 Scheerpeltz
overlooked his previous usage of the name Parapisalia.

8. Pace (1982, p. 40) proposed the name Cyllopisalia (type species: Homalota
difformis Mulsant & Rey, 1853 (p. 33); see Article 67.8) to replace Parapisalia
Scheerpeltz, 1966. Pace stated that, according to a ‘strict interpretation of the Code’,
Sipalia (Sipalia) Mulsant & Rey, 1853 would be the valid name for this subgenus. He
then argued that the name Sipa/ia must not be conserved because it had been used for
the familiar genus known as Geostiba Thomson, 1858 for more than half a century.
Whatever the merits of these arguments of prevailing use by Lohse (1974) and Pace
(1982), the Code does not allow the reversal of precedence of Leptusa or Cyllopisalia
over Sipalia without application to the Commission, as the conditions of Article
23.9.1 are not met.

9. Leptusa (tribe HOMALOTINI) is a well-known genus that includes more than 400
species and subspecies distributed in the Holarctic and Oriental regions, temperate
South America and subantarctic islands. This name has been used by more than 34
authors in at least 97 works published during the last 50 years; a record of these is
held by the Commission Secretariat. However as Sipalia has been used in seven works
(Sawada, 1970a, p. 40; 1970b, p. 34; 1990, p. 541; Burakowski et al., 1981, p. 40;
Borowiec, 1990, p. 820; Mazur, 1995, p. 75; 2000, p. 16) in this period, the name
Leptusa is prevented from ‘automatic’ conservation under Article 23:9.2. The

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003 193

subgenus Cyllopisalia Pace, 1982 currently includes 18 species and subspecies

distributed in France and Italy, but this name has been used in only four papers by

one author (Pace, 1982, p. 40; 1989, p. 140; 1996, p. 27; 1999, p. 211).

10. Acceptance of strict priority and the use of Sipalia in place of Leptusa would
seriously threaten universality and cause significant confusion. This is because from
1909 to 1974 most authors (see para. 6 above) used the name Sipalia for the genus
now known as Geostiba (tribe ATHETINI). Consequently, it is important that the name
Sipalia Mulsant & Rey, 1853 is suppressed to stabilize the nomenclature and avoid
confusion between Sipalia as a senior synonym of Leptusa and Cyllopisalia, and
Sipalia of authors as used for Geostiba Thomson, 1859.

11. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to use its plenary power to suppress the generic name Sipalia Mulsant & Rey,
1853 for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the
Principle of Homonymy;
to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) Leptusa Kraatz, 1856 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent

designation by Gusaroyv & Herman (2003) Bolitochara pulchella
Mannerheim, 1830;

(b) Cyllopisalia Pace, 1982 (gender: feminine), type species, by original desig-
nation of the replaced nominal genus Parapisalia Scheerpeltz, 1966,
Homalota difformis Mulsant & Rey, 1853;

(c) Geostiba Thomson, 1858 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy
Aleochara circellaris Gravenhorst, 1806;

to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following

names:

(a) pulchella Mannerheim, 1830, as published in the binomen Bolitochara
pulchella (specific name of the type species of Leptusa Kraatz, 1856);

(b) difformis Mulsant & Rey, 1853, as published in the binomen Homalota
difformis (specific name of the type species of Cy/lopisalia Pace, 1982);

(c) circellaris Gravenhorst, 1806, as published in the binomen Aleochara
circellaris (specific name of the type species of Geostiba Thomson,
1858);

to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in

Zoology the following names:

(a) Sipalia Mulsant & Rey, 1853, as suppressed in (1) above;

(b) Parapisalia Scheerpeltz, 1966 (a junior homonym of Parapisalia
Scheerpeltz, 1948).

(2

a

()

ma

=

Acknowledgements

We are greatly indebted to Volker Assing and Michael Schiilke for valuable
comments and help with the references. We are grateful to Jyrki Muona, Roberto
Pace and Lothar Zerche for critical reading of the manuscript. This work
was supported by National Science Foundation PEET grants DEB-9521755 and
DEB-9978110 to Steve Ashe and by the Russian Federal program ‘Russian
Universities—Fundamental Sciences’ (project 07.01.056).

194 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003

References

Benick, G. & Lohse, G.A. 1974. 14. Tribus: Callicerini (Athetae). Pp. 72-220 in
Freude, H., Harde, K.W. & Lohse, G.A. (Eds.), Die Kafer Mitteleuropas. Band 5,
Staphylinidae IT (Hypocyphtinae und Aleocharinae). Pselaphidae. 381 pp. Goecke &
Verlag, Krefeld.

Bernhauer, M. 1900. Die Staphyliniden-Gattung Leptusa Kraatz, nebst einer analytischen
Bestimmungstabelle der palaarktischen Arten. Verhandlungen der Zoologisch-Botanischen
Gesellschaft in Wien, 50: 399-432.

Bernhauer, M. 1905. Neue Aleocharinen aus Nordamerika. Deutsche Entomologische
Zeitschrift, 1905: 249-256.

Bernhauer, M. & Scheerpeltz, O. 1926. Staphylinidae VI. Pp. 499-988 in Junk, W. &
Schenkling, S. (Eds.), Coleopterorum Catalogus, vol. 6, pt. 82. Junk, Berlin.

Borowiec, L. 1990. New records of Polish Staphylinidae (Coleoptera). Polskie Pismo
Entomologiczne, 59: 817-820.

Burakowski, B., Mroczkowski, M. & Stefanska, J. 1981. Chrzaszcze—Coleoptera,
Kusakowate—Staphylinidae, czes¢ 3: Aleocharinae. Katalog fauny Polski, czes¢ 23, tom
8. 330 pp. PWN, Warszawa.

Fauyel, A. 1902a. Zur Staphyliniden-Fauna von Ceylan, von Dr. Max Bernhauer (Deutsche
Entom. Zeits., 1902, Heft 1). Revue d’Entomologie, 21: 40-43. ¢

Fauvel, A. 1902b. Catalogue des Staphylinides de la Barbarie, de la Basse-Egypte et des Iles
Acores, Madéres, Salvages et Canaries (5° édition). Revue d’Entomologie, 21: 45-189.

Gravenhorst, J.L.C. 1806. Monographia Coleopterorum Micropterorum. xvi, 248 pp. Henrich
Dieterich, G6ttingen.

Gusaroy, V.I. & Herman, L.H. 2003. Leptusa Kraatz, 1856 (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae,
Aleocharinae): designation of the type species. Entomologische Blatter fiir Biologie und
Systematik der Kafer, 98(2): 115-119.

Gyllenhal, L. 1810. Insecta Svecica. Classis I. Coleoptera sive Eleuterata, tom. I, pars 2. xx,
660 pp. Leverentz, Scaris.

Hampe, C. 1863. Ein kleiner Beitrag zur gross-6sterreichischen Kaferfauna. Wiener Entomolo-
gische Monatschrift, 7: 285-289.

Kraatz, G. 1856. Naturgeschichte der Insecten Deutschlands. Erste Abteilung. Coleoptera. Bd. 2.
Lief. 1-2. Pp. 1-376. Nicolaischen Buchhandlung, Berlin.

Lohse, G.A. 1974. 11. Tribus: Bolitocharini. Pp. 39-63 in Freude, H., Harde, K.W. & Lohse,
G.A. (Eds.), Die Kafer Mitteleuropas. Band 5, Staphylinidae IT (Hypocyphtinae und
Aleocharinae ). Pselaphidae. 381 pp. Goecke & Evers, Krefeld.

Mannerheim, C.G. 1830. Précis d'un nouvel arrangement de la famille des Brachélytres, de
Vordre des Insectes Coléoptéres. 87 pp. St. Pétersbourg.

Mazur, A. 1995. Kusakowate (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae) towarzyszace zerowiskom ksylof-
agow i wystepujace pod kora drzew. Pp. 71-79 in Labedzki, A. (Ed.), Szkodniki wtorne,
ich rola oraz znaczenie w lesie. Referaty z konferencji naukowej w Puszczykowie 22 IV 1995.
112 pp. Wydawnictwo “Acarus’, Poznan.

Mazur, A. 2000. Roznorodnos¢ gatunkowa zgrupowan kusakowatych (Coleoptera:
Staphylinidae) lasow bukowych w rejonie Przedgorza Sudeckiego. Pp. 12-20 in
Nowosad, A. (Ed.), Rola chrzaszczy kusakowatych (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae) w
funkcjonowaniu i ochronie ekosystemow lesnych. I Sympozjum Staphylinidae, Rogow, 10-12
listopada 1999. Materiay Konferencyjne. 64 pp. Bogucki Wydawnictwo Naukowe,
Poznan.

Mulsant, E. & Rey, C. 1853. Description de quelques Coléoptéres nouveaux ou peu connus, de
la tribu des Brachélytres. Annales de la Société Linnéenne de Lyon, ser. 2, 1: 22-72.
Pace, R. 1982. Nuovo contributo alla conoscenza delle specie italiane del genere Leptusa
Kraatz (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae). Bollettino della Societa entomologica italiana,

114(1-3): 3441.

Pace, R. 1983. Risultati dello studio delle specie del genere Leptusa Kraatz della collezione
Scheerpeltz al Naturhistorisches Museum di Vienna (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae). Annalen
des Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien, (B)85: 53—102.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003 195

Pace, R. 1989. Monografia del genere Leptusa Kraatz (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae). Memorie
del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona (Ila serie), sezione scienze della vita (A:
Biologica), 8: 5—307.

Pace, R. 1996. Nuove Leptusa Kraatz di Spagna, Francia, Italia, Austria, Cipro, Turchia e
Taiwan. Monografia del genere Leptusa Kraatz: Supplemento 4 (Coleoptera, Staphylini-
dae). Nouvelle Revue d’Entomologie, 13(1): 21-33.

Pace, R. 1999. Nuove specie del genere Leptusa Kraatz raccolte da Manfred Kahlen
(Monografia del genere Leptusa Kraatz: supplemento 8) (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae).
Veroffentlichungen des Tiroler Landesmuseums Ferdinandeum, 79: 207-214.

Pope, R.D. 1977. A checklist of British insects, pt. 3, Coleoptera and Strepsiptera, Ed. 2.
Handbooks for identification of British insects, 11(3): 1-205.

Reitter, E. 1909. Fauna Germanica. Die Kdfer des Deutschen Reiches. Nach der analytischen
Methode bearbeitet. Bd. 2. 392 pp. K.G. Lutz, Stuttgart.

Sainte-Claire Deville, J. 1906. Catalogue critique des Coléopteres de la Corse. Revue
d’Entomologie, 25: 1-136.

Sawada, K. 1970a. Aleocharinae (Staphylinidae, Coleoptera) of the IBP-Station in the Shiga
Heights, Central Japan (1). Bulletin of the National Science Museum, Tokyo, 13(1): 23-64.

Sawada, K. 1970b. Aleocharinae (Staphylinidae, Coleoptera) of the IBP-Station in the
Shiga Heights, Central Japan (11). Contributions from the Biological Laboratory, Kyoto
University, 23(1): 33-60.

Sawada, K. 1990. New species of Aleocharinae from Japan, 2 (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae).
Contributions from the Biological Laboratory, Kyoto University, 27(4): 541-553.

Scheerpeltz, O. 1934. Staphylinidae VII. Pp. 1501-1881 in Junk, W. & Schenkling, S. (Eds.),
Coleopterorum Catalogus, vol. 6, pt. 130. Junk, Berlin.

Scheerpeltz, O. 1948. Zwei neue Leptusen aus Karnten (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae). Carinthia
II, Mitteilungen des Naturwissenschaftlichen Vereines fiir Karnten, 137-138: 155-164.
Scheerpeltz, O. 1966. Die neue Systematik der Grossgattung Leptusa Kraatz (Col. Staphyli-

nidae). Verhandlungen der Zoologisch-Botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien, 105-106: S—S5.

Thomson, C.G. 1852. Insekt-slagtet Homalota. Ofversigt af Kongl. Vetenskaps-Akademiens
Férhandlingar, 9: 131-146.

Thomson, C.G. 1858. Fors6k till uppstallning af Sveriges Staphyliner. Ofversigt af Kongl.
Vetenskaps-Akademiens Férhandlingar, 15: 27-40.

Thomson, C.G. 1859. Skandinaviens Coleoptera, synoptiskt bearbetade, tom 1. v, 290 pp.
Berlingska Boktryckeriet, Lund.

Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 59: 233.

Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).

196 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003

Case 3279

Curculio picipes Marsham, 1802 (currently Procas picipes; Insecta,
Coleoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name

Richard T. Thompson

Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road,
London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: richt2@nhm.ac.uk)

Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.5 of the Code, is to
conserve the name Curculio picipes Marsham, 1802 (currently Procas picipes) for a
widely distributed Palaearctic weevil (family ERIRHINIDAE) that appears In numerous
faunal lists and catalogues. Marsham’s name is a junior primary homonym of
Curculio picipes Fabricius, 1777, but the two nominal species have not been
considered congeneric since the early 1800s and are currently placed in different
families. In addition, Curculio picipes Fabricius, 1777 is an unused name as it has
been considered a junior synonym of Otiorhynchus singularis (Linnaeus, 1767)
(family CURCULIONIDAE) since 1871.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; CURCULIONOIDEA; Procas; Procas
picipes; weevils; Palaearctic.

1. Westwood, 1838 (p. 36) designated Curculio picipes Marsham, 1802 (p. 272) as
the type species of the weevil genus Procas Stephens, 1831 (p. 90) (currently in the
family ERIRHINIDAE; superfamily CURCULIONOIDEA). In 1879, Bedel (p. xvii)
erroneously placed C. picipes in synonymy with P. armillatus (Fabricius, 1801).
C. picipes (currently Procas picipes) is a widely distributed Palaearctic species that
appears in numerous faunal lists and catalogues (e.g. Alonso-Zarazaga & Lyal,
1999). f

2. C. picipes Marsham, 1802 is a junior primary homonym of C. picipes Fabricius,
1777 (p. 229). C. picipes Fabricius was formally. synonymized with Otiorhynchus
singularis (Linnaeus, 1767) by Gemminger & Harold (1871, p. 2268), although
the names had already been associated with each other by Gyllenhal (1813, p. 318).
C. picipes Fabricius has remained unused and in this synonymy ever since.

3. The nominal species C. picipes Marsham, 1802 and C. picipes Fabricius, 1777
have not been regarded as congeneric since revision of the genus Curculio in the early
1800s and they are now placed in distantly related weevil families (ERIRHINIDAE and
CURCULIONIDAE respectively). Article 23.9.5 states that when it is discovered that a
specific name in use is a junior primary homonym of another specific name already
in use, but the names apply to taxa not considered congeneric after 1899, the junior
homonym must not be replaced automatically. Instead, the case should be referred to
the Commission. Replacement of the junior homonym in this case would cause
nomenclatural confusion.

4. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003 197

(1) to use its plenary power to rule that the name picipes Marsham, 1802, as
published in the binomen Curculio picipes, is not invalid by reason of being a
junior primary homonym of Curculio picipes Fabricius, 1777;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Procas
Stephens, 1831 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent designation by
Westwood (1838) Curculio picipes Marsham, 1802;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name picipes
Marsham, 1802, as published in the binomen Curculio picipes (type species of
Procas Stephens, 1831) and ruled in (1) above to be not invalid by reason of
being a junior primary homonym of Curculio picipes Fabricius, 1777.

References

Alonso-Zarazaga, M.A. & Lyal, C.H.C. 1999. A world catalogue of families and genera of
Curculionoidea (Insecta: Coleoptera). 315 pp. Entomopraxis, Barcelona.

Bedel, L. 1879. [Note in:] Bulletin des Séances ... Annales de la Société Entomologique de
France, (5)9: i-clxxvi.

Fabricius, J.C. 1777. Genera insectorum . . . xiv, 310 pp. Bartsch, Chilonii.

Gemminger, M. & Harold, E. von. 1871. Catalogus Coleopterorum . . ., vol. 8. Curculionidae.
Pp. 2181-2668, xi. Gummi, Monachii.

Gyllenhal, L. 1813. Insecta Suecica, vol. 1, pt. 3. 730 pp. Leverentz, Scaris.

Linnaeus, C. 1767. Systema Naturae, Ed. 12, vol. 1. 1327 pp. Salvii, Holmiae.

Marsham, T. 1802. Entomologia britannica . . ., vol. 1. Coleoptera. xxxi, 547 pp. London.
Stephens, J.F. 1831. I/lustrations of British entomology . . . Mandibulata, vol. 4. 414 pp.
London.

Westwood, J.O. 1838. Synopsis of the genera of British insects. 158 pp. [Appended to] An
introduction to the modern classification of insects, vol. 2. London.

Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 60: 177.

Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).

198 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003

Case 3251

Thereva Latreille, 1797 and Phasia Latreille, 1804 (Insecta, Diptera):
proposed conservation of usage by designation of Musca plebeja
Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species of Thereva

Kevin C. Holston

Department of Entomology, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801, U.S.A.
(e-mail: holston@life.uiuc.edu)

Michael E. Irwin

Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, University of
Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801, U.S.A. (e-mail: m-irwin2@uiuc.edu)

F. Christian Thompson

Systematic Entomology Laboratory, PSI, BARC, ARS, USDA,
clo Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.
(e-mail: cthompso@sel.barc.usda.gov)

Abstract. The purpose of this application, in relation to Article 67.2 of the Code, is
to conserve the usage of the name Thereva Latreille, 1797 for a cosmopolitan genus
of stiletto flies (family THEREVIDAE) that currently includes 201 species, and also the
usage of Phasia Latreille, 1804 and PHASIINAE for a group of tachinid flies (family
TACHINIDAE), some of which are economically important as parasites of plant bugs
(Heteroptera). It is proposed that Musca plebeja Lmnaeus, 1758 should be designated
as the type species of the therevid genus Thereva. M. plebeja was not one of the
nominal species that were first associated with the name Thereva by Fabricius (1798).
Fabricius used Thereva for a group of tachinid flies that are now referred to by the
name Phasia Latreille, 1804.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy;. Diptera; THEREVIDAE; TACHINIDAE; Thereva;
Phasia; Thereva plebeja; stiletto flies; tachinids.

1. Latreille (1797, p. 168) described a genus of stiletto flies (now in the family
THEREVIDAE) and named it Thereva. He stated that the genus was characterised by two
pulvill (‘deux pelotes’) and wings that are held open over the abdomen and angled
slightly upwards (‘écarteés, un peu assurgentes’). He described the abdomen as
conical (“Abdomen conique, déprimé’) and noted that the antennae are the length of
the head with the last segment conical, articulated apically, and bearing a small
lateral bristle (Antennes de la longueur de la téte; dernier article conique, articulé 4
Pextrémité, avec une petite soie latérale’).

2. The following year Fabricius (1798, pp. 549, 560) also used the name Thereva.
His description did not mention the state of the pulvillus and on p. 560 he referred
to the wings of Thereva as crassiform and opaque with maculations (‘alis duabis,

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003 199

crassis, maculates, opaci’). He described the large, rounded cilliate calypter of the
wing (‘squama halterum magna, rotundata, ciliata’) and the body of Thereva
as being fat and ovate (‘corpus medium, crassum, obesum, ovatum’). Most
significantly, Fabricius (1798, p. 549) described the antennae of Thereva as short,
recumbent, compressed and bearing a seta (‘Antennae breves, incumbentes,
compressae, extrorsum crassiores, setiarae’).

3. It is clear that Latreille (1797) and Fabricius (1798) were describing two
very different groups of flies under the name Thereva. The characters described
by the two authors place Thereva sensu Latreille in the superfamily AsILOIDEA
(sub-order Brachycera) and Thereva sensu Fabricius in the subfamily PHASIINAE
(family TACHINIDAE; sub-order Cyclorrhapha). In other words, Latreille was
describing a group of stiletto flies and Fabricius was describing a group of
tachinid flies.

4. Latreille’s description made the generic name Thereva available in 1797, but he
did not then assign any nominal species to the genus. However, in 1798 Fabricius
provided a list of six species as members of the genus Thereva as he understood
the concept. These were all tachinid species: Conops subcoleoptrata Linnaeus, 1767,
Syrphus hemipterus, S. crassipennis and S. affinis Fabricius, 1794; and two new
species, Thereva analis and T. obesa. As recorded in the Commission’s Opinion 896
(April 1970), C. subcoleoptrata is the type species of Phasia Latreille, 1804 (p. 195) by
subsequent monotypy and S. crassipennis is the type species of Ectophasia Townsend,
1912 by original designation; T. obesa is the type species of Allophorella Townsend,
1912 (which is a junior synonym of Phasia; see Herting & Dely-Draskovits, 1993).
S. affinis is a junior synonym of Phasia subcoleoptrata (Linnaeus), and T. analis
Fabricius is a junior synonym of Ectophasia crassipennis (Fabricius). Designating any
one of these nominal species as the type species would not conserve the universally
accepted use of the name Thereva for a group of stiletto flies, and could threaten the
tachinid names Phasia or Ectophasia.

5. Latreille (1802) associated the first stiletto fly species with Thereva. He (p. 441)
gave ‘Bibio plebeja F.’ as an ‘exemple’ of Thereva, and listed this as “Bibio plebeia.
Fab.—Musca plebeia. Lin.’; he also included ‘Bibio marginata Fab.’ in the genus. In
1810 (p. 421) Latreille stated that ‘l’espéce qui sert de type’ of Thereva was *Bibio
plebeia. Fab.’, 1.e. Musca plebeja Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 589).

6. As noted by Latreille (1802), Fabricius (1775, 1787, 1794, 1798 and also in 1805)
consistently placed Musca plebeja Linnaeus in the nominal genus Bibio and described
additional stiletto fly species in Bibio. Most other insect systematists publishing
between 1800 and 1820 (e.g. Panzer, 1800, 1804; Meigen, 1803, 1804; Schellenberg,
1803; Fallén, 1814, 1815, 1820) followed the Fabrician concept of these taxa,
describing phasiine tachinids within Thereva and placing stiletto flies in Bibio.
Fabricius (1775, p. 756) used Bibio in a different taxonomic sense from that used
previously by Geoffroy (1762, pp. 450, 568); Geoffroy’s sense of Bibio is that in
current use and was conserved by the Commission in Opinion 441 (January 1957)
with Tipula hortolana Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species.

7. In 1820 Meigen changed his practice of 1803 and 1804 (see para. 6 above) and
used the generic name Thereva in Latreille’s sense for some of the stiletto fly species
previously included in Bibio sensu Fabricius; he used Phasia Latreille, 1804 for the
tachinid species previously included in Thereva sensu Fabricius.

200 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003

8. Subsequent to Meigen (1824) practically all works have used the generic name
Thereva for stiletto fly taxa and Phasia for tachinid taxa. These include all modern
regional Diptera catalogs, manuals, textbooks and field guides; a list of many major
works is held by the Commission Secretariat. A search of recent volumes of
Zoological, Record (1984-2001) yields 35 recent citations of the name Thereva, 137
citations of THEREVIDAE, and in the TACHINIDAE 26 citations of Phasia and 33 of
PHASIINAE.

9. Although the type species of Phasia and Ectophasia are settled, and both names
were placed on the Official List in 1970, modern catalogues differ in regard to
the valid type species of Thereva. In the catalogue of Diptera of America north of
Mexico (Cole, 1965, p. 352), Musca plebeja Linnaeus is given as the type species
by subsequent monotypy by Latreille (1802). This was accepted by Lyneborg
(1975, p. 93) in the Oriental catalogue of Diptera; by Lyneborg (1980, p. 320) in
the Afrotropical catalogue of Diptera; by Irwin & Lyneborg (1989, p. 358) in the
Australasian and Oceanian catalogue of Diptera; by Herting & Dely-Draskovits
(1993, p. 409) in the Palaearctic catalogue of Diptera; and by Sabrosky (1999, p. 306).
However, Lyneborg (1980, p. 320) noted that this typification for Thereva Latreille
rests on the assumption that the use of Thereva by Fabricius (1798, p. 560) was a
homonymous proposal separate from that of Latreille, because M. plebeja was not
one of the nominal species associated with the name Thereva (see para. 4 above) and
that Commission action was needed to validate this assumption.

10. In fact, seven of the generic names proposed by Latreille (1797) (but without
any included species) were subsequently published by Fabricius in 1798 (with
included species) for generic concepts different to those intended by Latreille; it is
hardly likely that Fabricius proposed all these names independently. To date, the
Commission has been asked to consider only one of these seven cases. In that ruling
(Opinion 346, June 1955) the Commission considered the use of the scarabeid beetle
name Geotrupes by Fabricius (1798, p. 7) to be a use in a different sense of Geotrupes
Latreille, 1797 (p. 6), and not to be an independent junior homonym. This is likely to
be the realistic interpretation, because not only did Latreille (1804, p. 142) complain
about the misapplication of his own generic names by Fabricius but the latter also
altered the application of names publisHed by other authors.

11. Herting (1984, p. 168) designated Conops subcoleoptrata Linnaeus, 1767 as
the type species of Thereva Fabricius, 1798, and reiterated this in Herting &
Dely-Draskovits (1993). In these two publications Thereva Fabricius, 1798 is
identified as a junior homonym of Thereva Latreille, 1797 and a senior synonym of
Phasia Latreille, 1804. Unfortunately, Herting proposed this type designation
without formally establishing Thereva Fabricius as an independent and homony-
mous proposal of Thereva through application to the Commission. If Fabricius is
considered to have used Latreille’s name, rather than creating a new one, then
Herting’s designation of Conops subcoleoptrata as the type species would fix
Thereva as a tachinid genus, contrary to the long usage of Thereva and Phasia
detailed above. This fixation, although in strict conformity with Articles 67.2.2 and
67.7 of the Code, would cause very wide confusion in the nomenclature of more
than 200 species and several generic and family-group names; it would set aside an
informal consensus of use which has prevented taxonomic confusion for more than
150 years.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003 : 201

12. We propose that Latreille’s intention (see para. 5 above) and long usage (see
para. 9 above) should be ratified by fixing Musca plebeja Linnaeus, 1758 as the type
species of Thereva. This proposal was electronically circulated to a number of
dipterists and the following specialists also support our proposal: Drs. K. Barber,
Sault Sainte Marie, Ontario; Daniel Bickel and David McAlpine, Sydney, Australia;
Brian Brown, Los Angeles, California; Robert Cannings, Victoria, British Columbia:
Eric Fisher and Stephen Gaimari, Sacramento, California; Graham Griffiths,
Sherwood Park, Alberta; Martin Hauser, Urbana, Illinois; Heikki Hippa & Thomas
Pape, Stockholm, Sweden; Wayne Mathis, Allen Norrbom & Norman Woodley,
Washington, D.C.; Adrian Pont, Oxford; Knut Rognes, Stavanger, Norway;
Graham Rotheray, Edinburgh, Scotland; Margaret Schneider, Brisbane, Australia:
Martin Speight, Dublin, Ireland; Terry Wheeler, Montreal, Quebec; and Brian
Wiegmann and Shaun Winterton, Raleigh, North Carolina.

13. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to use its plenary power to set aside all previous fixations of type species for the
nominal genus Thereva Latreille, 1797 and to designate Musca plebeja
Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Thereva
Latreille, 1797 (gender: feminine), type species by designation in (1) above
Musca plebeja Linnaeus, 1758;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name plebeja
Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Musca plebeja (specific name of
the type species of Thereva Latreille, 1797);

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in
Zoology the name Thereva Fabricius, 1798 (a junior homonym of Thereva
Latreille, 1797).

References

Cole, F.R. 1965. Family Therevidae. Pp. 348-354 in Stone, A., Sabrosky, C.W., Wirth, W.W.,
Foote, R.H. & Coulson, J.R. (Eds.), A Catalog of the Diptera of America North of Mexico.
1696 pp. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

Fabricius, J.C. 1775. Systema entomologiae. [32], 832 pp. Kortii, Flensbergi et Lipsiae.

Fabricius, J.C. 1787. Mantissa insectorum, vol. 2. [2], 382 pp. Proft, Hafniae.

Fabricius, J.C. 1794. Entomologia systematica emendata et aucta, vol. 4. [6], 472, [5] pp. Proft.
Hafniae.

Fabricius, J.C. 1798. Supplementum entomologiae systematicae. 11, 572 pp. Proft & Storch,
Hafniae.

Fabricius, J.C. 1805. Systema antliatorum. xv, [15], 372, [4], 30 pp. Reichard, Brunsvigae.

Fallén, C.F. 1814. Anthracides Sveciae. 16 pp. Lundae.

Fallén, C.F. 1815. Beskrifning 6fver nagra Rot-fluge Arter, horande till slagterna Thereva och
Ocyptera. Kongliga Svenska Vetensk Akademiens Nya Handlingar, 1815: 229-240.

Fallén, C.F. 1820. Rhizomyzides Sveciae. 10 pp. Berlingianis, Lundae.

Geoffroy, E.L. 1762. Histoire abregée des insectes qui se trouvent aux environs de Paris, vol. 2.
690 pp. Durand, Paris.

Herting, B. 1984. Catalogue of Palearctic Tachinidae (Diptera). Stwttgarter Beitrage zur
Naturkunde. Serie A (Biologie), no. 369. 228 pp.

Herting, B. & Dely-Draskovits, A. 1993. Family Tachinidae. Pp. 118-458 in Sods, A. &
Papp, L. (Eds.), Catalogue of Palaearctic Diptera, vol. 13, Anthomyidae—Tachinidae.
Hungarian Natural History Museum, Budapest.

202 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003

Irwin, M.E. & Lyneborg, L. 1989. Family Therevidae. Pp. 353-358 in Evenhuis, N.L. (Ed.),
Catalog of the Diptera of the Australasian and Oceanian Regions. 1155 pp. Bishop Museum
Press, Honolulu.

Latreille, P.A. 1797. Précis des caractéres génériques des insectes, deposés dans un ordre naturel
par le Citoyen Latreille. xiii, 201, 7 pp. Prévot, Paris.

Latreille, P.A. 1802. Histoire naturelle, générale et particuliére des crustacés et des insectes,
vol. 3. ii, 13, 467 pp. Dufart, Paris.

Latreille, P.A. 1804. Tableau méthodique des insectes. Classe huitieme. Pp. 129-200 in:
Nouveau dictionnaire d'histoire naturelle, appliquée aux arts, principalement a l'agriculture
et a l’economie rurale et domestique; par une société de naturalistes et d’agriculteurs: avec
des figures des trois régnes de la nature. Vol. 24. Déterville, Paris.

Latreille, P.A. 1810. Considérations générales sur lordre naturel des animaux composant les
classes des crustacés, des arachnides, et des insectes. 444 pp. Schoell, Paris.

Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae.

Lyneborg, L. 1975. Family Therevidae. Pp. 91-93 in Delfinado, M.D. & Hardy, D.E. (Eds.),
A Catalog of Diptera of the Oriental Region, vol. 2. Suborder Brachycera through to
Division Aschiza, Suborder Cyclorrhapha. 459 pp. University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu.

Lyneborg, L. 1980. 24. Family Therevidae. Pp. 314-320 in Crosskey, R.W., Cogan, B.H.,
Freeman, P., Pont, A.C., Smith, K.G.V. & Oldroyd, H. (Eds.), Catalogue of the Diptera
of the Afrotropical Region. 1437 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London.

Lyneborg, L. 1989. Family Therevidae. Pp. 11-35 in Soos, A. & Papp, L. (Eds.), Catalogue of
Palaearctic Diptera, vol. 6, Therevidae—Empidae. 435 pp. Akadémiai Kiado, Budapest.

Meigen, J.W. 1803. Versuch einer neuen Gattungs Eintheilung der europdischen zweiflugeligen
Insekten. Magazin fiir Insektenkunde, 2: 259-281.

Meigen, J.W. 1804. Klassifikazion und Beschreibung der europdischen zweifliigeligen Insekten
(Diptera Linn. ). Erster Band: Abt. I, viii, 1-152 pp.; Abt. II, vi, 153-314 pp. Reichard,
Braunschweig.

Meigen, J.W. 1820. Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten europdischen zweifliigeligen
Insekten, Zweiter Theil. xxxvi, 36, 3 pp. Forstmann, Aachen.

Meigen, J.W. 1824. Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten europdischen zweifliigeligen
Insekten, Vierter Theil. xu, 428 pp. Schultz-Wundermann, Hamm.

Panzer, G.W.F. 1800. P. 19 in: Favnae insectorum germanicae initia oder Deutschlands Insecten,
Hefte 97. 24 pp., 24 pls. Felsecker, Nurnberg.

Panzer, G.W.F. 1804. Systematische Nomenclatur tiber weiland Herrn Dr. Jacob Christian
Schdffers natiirlich ausgemahlte abbildungen regensburgerischer Insekten. xvii, 260 pp.
Palm, Erlangen.

Sabrosky, C.W. 1999. Family-group names of Diptera. Myia, 10: 1-360.

Schellenberg, J.R. 1803. Genres des mouches diptéres représentés en XLII planches projettées et
dessinées par J.R. Schellenberg, et expliquées par deux amateurs de lentomologie.
Gattungen der Fliegen in XLII Kupfertafeln entworfen und gezeichnet von J.R. Schellenberg,
und erkldrt durch zwei Liebhaber der Insektenkunde. xiti, 14, 95, [1] pp. Orell & Fuessli,
Zurich.

Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 59: 233.

Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003 203

Case 3269

Rhamphomyia (Rhamphomyia) Meigen, 1822 and Rhamphomyia
(Pararhamphomyia) Frey, 1922 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed
conservation of usage of the subgeneric names by designation of
Empis sulcata Meigen, 1804 as the type species of Rhamphomyia

Miroslav Bartak

Czech University of Agriculture, Department of Zoology & Fishery,
165 21 Praha 6, Czech Republic (e-mail: bartak@af.czu.cz)

Bradley J. Sinclair

Zoologisches Forschungsinstitut und Museum Alexander Koenig,
Adenauerallee 160, 53113 Bonn, Germany
(e-mail: b.sinclair.zfmk@uni-bonn.de)

Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 70.2 of the Code, is to
conserve the widespread usage of the subgeneric names Rhamphomyia (Rham-
phomyia) Meigen, 1822 and Rhamphomyia (Pararhamphomyia) Frey, 1922 for groups
of dance-flies (family EmprpIDAE) by designating Empis sulcata Meigen, 1804 as the
type species of Rhamphomyia (Rhamphomyia) Meigen, 1822. The valid type species is
Empis marginata Fabricius, 1787. However, in 1834 Curtis invalidly designated
Empis sulcata Meigen, 1804 as the type species and all subsequent authors have
accepted this designation. Acceptance of the valid type species designation (Empis
marginata) would destabilise the current usage of these subgeneric names and those
of over 200 species currently included in these groups.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Diptera; EmMPIDIDAE; Rhamphomyia; Rham-
phomyia (Rhamphomyia) marginata; Rhamphomyia (Pararhamphomyia) geniculata;
dance-flies.

1. Meigen (1822, p. 42) described the genus Rhamphomyia and included 37 species.
No type species was designated at that time. Guérin in Bory de Saint-Vincent (1828,
p. 547) subsequently designated Empis marginata Fabricius, 1787 (p. 364) as the type
species for Rhamphomyia, and provided a description of the genus and the characters
that distinguish this genus from related genera. All subsequent authors over-
looked this publication and type species designation until Evenhuis (1994) showed
that Empis marginata was the valid type species of Rhamphomyia (and hence
Rhamphomyia (Rhamphomyia)).

2. Apparently unaware of the work of Guérin, Curtis (1834, pl. 517 and
accompanying text) designated Empis sulcata Meigen, 1804 as the type species of
Rhamphomyia. This action was followed by Coquillett (1903) in his list of genera of
EMPIDIDAE, and then again in (1910) in his list of names of most genus-group taxa of
North American Diptera. With the exception of Evenhuis (1994), Empis sulcata has
been acknowledged to be the type species of Rhamphomyia in all publications
(including all modern regional catalogues) subsequent to Coquillett (1903, 1910).

204 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003

3. Currently, both Empis sulcata and E. marginata are assigned respectively to
different subgenera: Rhamphomyia (Rhamphomyia) and Rhamphomyia (Pararham-
phomyia) Frey, 1922 (p. 3). The type species by original designation (Frey, 1922,
p. 33) of the subgenus Rhamphomyia (Pararhamphomyia) is Empis plumipes Fallén,
1816 (p. 25). This was a misidentification of R. geniculata Meigen, 1830 (p. 340; see
Collin, 1961) and under Article 70.3.2 we herewith fix R. geniculata as the type
species. The currently accepted subgeneric classification follows that of Collin (1961)
with some comments by Bartak (1981). Chvala & Wagner (1989) followed this
classification for the “Catalogue of Palearctic Diptera’, where there are currently 110
species assigned to Rhamphomyia (Rhamphomyia) and 112 species assigned to
Rhamphomyia (Pararhamphomyia).

4. There remains only a single specimen of the original type series of Empis sulcata
(see Collin, 1961, p. 387; Bartak, 1989, p. 5). Unfortunately, this is a female, which
is indistinguishable from several closely related species. However, the species was
redescribed by Collin (1961, p. 383) and Bartak (1982, p. 412) and all subsequent
workers have used the name Empis sulcata in their sense.

5. Replacement of the currently accepted type species of Rhamphomyia (Rham-
phomyia), Empis sulcata, with the valid type species designation, Empis marginata,
would result in many new combinations and would cause undue confusion and
instability in the nomenclature and taxonomy of the EMpIDIDAE. Therefore, we
propose that the type designation for Rhamphomyia made by Guerin (1828) be set
aside and that Empis sulcata Meigen be designated as the type species following the
action of Curtis (1834).

6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to use its plenary power to set aside all fixations of type species for the nominal
genus Rhamphomyia Meigen, 1822 prior to the designation by Curtis (1834) of
Empis sulcata Meigen, 1804;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) Rhamphomyia Meigen, 1822 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent

designation by Curtis (1834) as ruled in (1) above Empis sulcata Meigen,
1822:

(b) Pararhamphomyia Frey, 1922 (gender: feminine), type species by original
designation Empis plumipes Fallén, 1816 (a misidentification of
Rhamphomyia geniculata Meigen, 1830, fixed as the type species by Bartak
& Sinclair (2003)):

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) sulcata Meigen, 1822, as published in the binomen Empis sulcata (specific

name of the type species of Rhamphomyia Meigen, 1822):

(b) geniculata Meigen, 1830, as published in the binomen Rhamphomyia
geniculata (specific name of the type species of Pararhamphomyia Frey,
1922).

Acknowledgements
We thank Drs M. Chvala (Prague), N.L. Evenhuis (Honolulu), N.D. Springate
(London), and H. Ulrich (Bonn) for discussions concerning this application.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003 205

Drs A.C. Pont (Reading) and N. Springate kindly provided copies of Guérin’s and
Curtis’s (1834) publications.

References

Bartak, M. 1981. A revision of the Rhamphomyia albosegmentata-group (Diptera, Empididae),
with descriptions of new species. Acta Universitatis Carolinae, Biologica, 5-6 (1979):
361-407.

Bartak, M. 1982. The Czechoslovak species of Rhamphomyia (Diptera, Empididae), with
descriptions of a new species from central Europe. Acta Universitatis Carolinae, Biologica,
5-6 (1980): 381-461.

Bartak, M. 1989. Revision of Meigen’s types of Rhamphomyia (Diptera, Empididae) in the
Paris Museum. Véstnik Ceskoslovenské Spolecnosti Zoologické, 53: 1-6.

Bory de Saint-Vincent, J.B.G.M. 1828. Dictionnaire classique d'histoire naturelle, par Messieurs
Audouin . . ., vol. 14. 710 pp. Ray, Gravier & Baudoin, Paris.

Chyala, M. & Wagner, R. 1989. Empididae. Pp. 228-336 in Soos, A. & Papp, L. (Eds.),
Catalogue of Palearctic Diptera, vol. 6, Therevidae - Empididae. 435 pp. Elsevier Science,
Amsterdam.

Collin, J.E. 1961. British flies. Empididae. 782 pp. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Cogquillett, D.W. 1903. The genera of the dipterous family Empididae, with notes and new
species. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington, 5: 245-272.

Coquillett, D.W. 1910. The type species of the North American genera of Diptera. Proceedings
of the United States National Museum, 37: 499-647.

Curtis, J. 1834. British entomology; being illustrations and descriptions of the genera of insects
found in Great Britain and Ireland: containing coloured figures from nature of the most rare
and beautiful species, and in many instances of the plants upon which they are found, vol. 11.
Pp. 482-529. Published by the author, London.

Evenhuis, N.L. 1994. Catalogue of the fossil flies of the world (Insecta: Diptera). 600 pp.
Backhuys, Leiden.

Fabricius, J.C. 1787. Mantissa insectorum . . ., tome 2. 382 pp. Proft, Hafniae.

Fallen, C.F. 1816. Empidiae Sveciae. Pp. 17-34. Berling, Lundae.

Frey, R. 1922. Vorarbeiten zu einer Monographie der Gattung Rhamphomyia Meig. (Dipt..
Empididae). Notulae Entomologicae, 2: 1-10, 33-45, 65-77.

Meigen, J.W. 1804. Klassifikazion und Beschreibung der europdischen zweifliigligen Insekten
(Diptera Linn. ). Erster Band. K. Reichard, Braunschweig. Abt. I. xxvii, 152 pp.; Abt. II.
vi, 153-314 pp.

Meigen, J.W. 1822. Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten europdischen zweifliigeligen
Insekten. x, 416 pp. Dritter Theil. Schultz-Wundermann, Hamm.

Meigen, J.W. 1830. Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten europdischen zweifliigeligen
Insekten. xii, 401 pp. Dritter Theil. Schultz-Wundermann, Hamm.

Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 60: 94.

Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).

206 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003

Case 3255

Macropodus concolor Ahl\, 1937 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes): proposed
conservation of the specific name

Ingo Schindler
Warthestr. 53a, 12051 Berlin, Germany (e-mail: ingoschindler@web.de)

Wolfgang Staeck
Auf dem Grat 41a, 14195 Berlin, Germany

Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to
conserve the specific name of Macropodus concolor Ahl, 1937, which has consistently
been used for the Black Paradise Fish (family OSPHRONEMIDAE), a well known
freshwater fish from Southeast Asia. The name is threatened by the senior objective
synonym Macropodus spechti Schreitmiller, 1936 for which suppression is proposed.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; OSPHRONEMIDAE; Macropodus concolor; Black
Paradise Fish; Southeast Asia.

1. In July 1936 the aquarist and fish hobbyist W. Schreitmiller gave two specimens
of a new species of Paradise Fish (genus Macropodus Lacepéde) to E. Ahl for
determination and description. A few months later (October) on his own initiative,
Schreitmiiller introduced the name Macropodus opercularis Linnaeus var. spechti (a
subspecific name under Article 45.6.4) for this fish with an illustration and general
description in which he did not mention any particular specimens (Schreitmiller,
1936a, p. 181). In November Schreitmiller (1936b, p. 501) used the name Macropo-
dus opercularis concolor Ahl with reference to Ahl’s forthcoming description, which
was already in print at that time. Schreitmiiller (1936b, p. 501) requested that
Macropodus opercularis var. spechti should be treated as a synonym of Macropodus
opercularis concolor Ah\ and explained that he did not want to anticipate the scientific
decision: ‘Da ich der Wissenschaft nicht vorgreifen will, bitte ich, nunmehr den...
Namen °‘M. opercularis spechti Schreitm. 1936’ als Synonym zu fihren’. Although
Schreitmiiller’s action had no significance with respect to the Principle of Priority the
name Macropodus opercularis var. spechti has been virtually forgotten.

2. Ahl’s description of the new fish, under the name Macropodus opercularis
concolor, was published in February 1937 (Ahl, 1937, p. 117). Two syntypes were
deposited in the Zoologisches Museum Berlin; a lectotype ZMB 31380 was desig-
nated by Paepke (1994, p. 75). Since that time Macropodus opercularis concolor and
Macropodus concolor (after recognition of the species rank by Vierke, 1978b, p. 76)
have both been used as the name for the Black Paradise Fish in scientific and popular
works (see Schwier, 1939; Vadasz et al., 1978; Vierke, 1978a; Paepke, 1992, 1994:
Freyhof & Herder, 2002; an additional 28 references are held by the Commission
Secretariat).

3. Freyhof & Herder (2002, p. 156) used the name Macropodus spechti for the Black
Paradise Fish. They stated that the name M. spechti was not a nomen oblitum as it
had not been rejected as such between 1961 and 1973 (Article 23.12) and it was

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003 207

therefore available. Accordingly, Freyhof & Herder (2002, p. 160) reasoned that
‘Ahl’s material of M. concolor is part of the material referred to by Schreitmiller
(1936a)’ and designated the lectotype of M. opercularis concolor Ahl (see para. 2
above) as the lectotype of M. opercularis var. spechti Schreitmiiller, 1936, making the
names objective synonyms (Freyhof & Herder, 2002, p. 160). Until the action by
Freyhof & Herder the senior name was effectively forgotten. Considering that
Schreitmiiller (1936b) indicated that the name spechti Schreitmiiller, 1936 be recog-
nized as a synonym of the then unpublished name concolor Ahl, 1937 it seems
appropriate to follow Recommendation 23A and refer this case to the Commission
for a ruling.

4. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly

asked:

(1) to use its plenary power to suppress the subspecific name spechti Schreitmiuller,
1936, as published in the trinomen Macropodus opercularis spechti, for the
purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of
Homonymy;

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name concolor
Ahl, 1937, as published in the trinomen Macropodus opercularis concolor;

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in
Zoology the name spechti Schreitmiiller, 1936, as published in the trinomen
Macropodus opercularis spechti and as suppressed in (1) above.

References

Ahl, E. 1937. Neue Siisswasserfische aus dem Indischen und Malaiischen Gebiet. Zoologischer
Anzeiger, 117(5/6): 113-119.

Freyhof, J. & Herder, F. 2002. Review of the paradise fishes of the genus Macropodus in
Vietnam, with description of two new species from Vietnam and southern China.
Ichthyological Exploration of Freshwaters, 13(2): 147-167.

Paepke, H.-J. 1992. The recognition of Macropodus concolor Ahl, 1937. Labyrinth, 12(3): \—5.

Paepke, H.-J. 1994. Paradiesfische, die Gattung Macropodus. Die Neue Brehm-Biicherei Nr.
616. 144 pp. Westarp Wissenschaft, Magdeburg.

Schreitmiiller, W. 1936a. Ein neuer Makropode (7) Macropodus opercularis L. var. spechti
Schreitm. (Netz- oder Gitterparadiesfisch). Das Aquarium, 10: 181-182.

Schreitmiiller, W. 1936b. Neu- und Wiedereinfiihrungen. Nachrichtenblatt ftir Aquarien- und
Terrarienvereine, Nr. 35: 501.

Schwier, H. 1939. Geschlechterbestimmung und -differenzierung bei Macropodus opercularis,
concolor, chinensis und anderen Artbastarden. Zeitschrift fiir induktive Abstammungs- und
Vererbungslehre, 77: 291-335.

Vadasz, C.S., Kiss, B. & Csanyi, V. 1978. Defensive behaviour and its inheritance in the
anabantoid fish, Macropodus opercularis and Macropodus opercularis concolor. Behaviour
Processes, 3: 107-124.

Vierke, J. 1978a. Der Schwarze Makropode. Aquarien Magazin, 12(2): 76-81.

Vierke, J. 1978b. Labyrinthfische und verwandte Arten. 232 pp. Engelbert Pfriem-Verlag,
Wuppertal-Elberfeld.

Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 59: 223.

Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).

208 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003

Case 3277

Chitra chitra Nutaphand, 1986 (Reptilia, Testudines): proposed
precedence of the specific name over that of Chitra selenkae Jaekel, 1911

William P. McCord

East Fishkill Animal Hospital, 455 Rte 82, Hopewell Jct., New York,
NY 12533, U.S.A. (e-mail: Chelodina@aol.com) (corresponding author)

Peter C.H. Pritchard

Chelonian Research Institute, 402 South Central Avenue, Oviedo,
Florida 32765, U.S.A. (e-mail: ChelonianRI@aol.com)

Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 23.9.3 and 81.2.3 of the
Code, is to conserve the widely used name Chitra chitra Nutaphand, 1986 for
the Narrow-headed Softshell turtle (Testudines; family TRIONYCHIDAE) found in
Thailand, Malaysia and on the islands of Sumatra and Java, Indonesia, by giving it
precedence over the neglected palaeontological name Chitra selenkae Jaekel, 1911,
whenever the two are considered to be synonyms.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Reptilia; Testudines; TRIONYCHIDAE: Chitra
chitra; Chitra selenkae; Narfow-headed Softshell turtles; Thailand; Malaysia;
Indonesia.

1. In 1911, the name Chitra selenkae was given to a small collection of fossilized
turtle bones from several Chitra specimens found in Java, Indonesia, by Jaekel (1911,
p. 80; see table XV). This name has been unused since its original publication (see
‘Notes added in proof in McCord & Pritchard, 2003, pp. 55-56 for details).
However, as the name was used after 1899, it cannot be ge aes declared a
nonin oblitum under Articles 23.9.1.1 and 23.9.2.

2. In 1986, the Thai biologist Wirot Nutaphand (p. 66; see pl. on p. 65) recognized
the Narrow-headed Softshell turtle of Thailand as specifically distinct from Chitra
indica (Gray, 1831) that is found on the Indian subcontinent (C. indica is the type
species by monotypy of Chitra Gray, 1844) and assigned it the name Chitra chitra (see
McCord & Pritchard, 2003, p. 18). Note that Nutaphand (Nutphand in some works)
is sometimes referred to by his first name in the literature, making the full citation of
this name Chitra chitra Wirot, 1986. Although, application of the first name is
traditional for everyday usage in Thailand, we follow the convention in zoological
nomenclature of using the author’s surname. C. chitra has been used in reference to
the Narrow-headed Softshell from Thailand, peninsular Malaysia and Indonesia in at
least 31 works, by at least 59 authors encompassing a span of not less than ten years
in the last 50 years (e.g. see all references except Gray (1831, 1844) and Jaekel (1911)
given in the reference list below; further references are held by the Commission
Secretariat), thus meeting the criteria for reversal of precedence in Article 23.9.1.2.

3. Since Nutaphand’s (1986) work, it has been widely accepted (e.g. Engstrom,
Shaffer & McCord (2002, pp. 176-178); McCord & Pritchard (2003, pp. 35-37)) that

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003 209

the Recent Thai, Malaysian and Indonesian populations of C. chitra turtles are
conspecific. According to the Principle of Priority, if the fossil remains from Java
named C. selenkae are also conspecific with the above, the name C. selenkae would
be the valid name for this species. However, use of the senior synonym would cause
nomenclatural confusion as the name C. chitra is in widespread use (see reference list
below, with the exception of Gray (1831, 1844) and Jaekel (1911)).

4. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly

asked:

(1) to use its plenary power to give the name chitra Nutaphand, 1986, as published
in the binomen Chitra chitra, precedence over the name selenkae Jaekel, 1911,
as published in the binomen Chitra selenkae, whenever the two are considered
to be synonyms;

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) chitra Nutaphand, 1986, as published in the binomen Chitra chitra, with the

endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the name selenkae Jaekel,
1911, as published in the binomen Chitra selenkae, whenever the two are
considered to be synonyms;

(b) selenkae Jaekel, 1911, as published in the binomen Chitra selenkae, with the
endorsement that it is not to be given priority over chitra Nutaphand, 1986,
as published in the binomen Chitra chitra, whenever the two are considered
to be synonyms.

References

Bour, R., Cadi, A., Guyot, G. et al. 2002. Atlas de la terrariophilie, volume 2. Les tortues
terrestres et aquatiques. 192 pp. Animalia Editions, Paris.

Chanard, T., Grossman, W., Gumprecht. A. & Schulz, K.-D. 1999. Amphibians and reptiles
of peninsular Malaysia and Thailand: an illustrated checklist. 240 pp. Bushmaster,
Germany.

Das, I. 1997. Conservation problems of tropical Asia’s most-threatened turtles. Pp. 295-301 in
Van Abbema, J. & Pritchard, P.C.H. (Eds.), Proceedings: Conservation, Restoration, and
Management of Tortoises and Turtles—An International Conference (NYTTS).

Engstrom, T.N. & McCord, W.P. 2003. Molecular support for the taxonomic conclusions of
McCord & Pritchard (2002), regarding Chitra. Hamadryad, 27(1): 57-61.

Engstrom, T.N., Shaffer, H.B. & McCord, W.P. 2002. Phylogenetic diversity of endangered
and critically endangered southeast Asian softshell turtles (Trionychidae: Chitra).
Biological Conservation, 104: 173-179.

Frank, N. & Ramus, E. 1995. 4 complete guide to scientific and common names of reptiles and
amphibians of the world. 377 pp. NG Publishing, Pennsylvania.

Gray, J.E. 1831. A synopsis of the species of the Class Reptilia. Pp. 1-110 in Griffith, E. &
Pigeon, E. (Eds.), The Class Reptilia, arranged by the Baron Cuvier, with specific
descriptions, vol. 9. Whittaker, Treacher & Co., London.

Gray, J.E. 1844. Catalogue of the tortoises, crocodiles and amphisbaenians, in the collection of
the British Museum. 80 pp. British Museum, London.

Iskandar, D.T. 2000. Kwra-Kura & Buaya Indonesia & Papua Nuigini, dengan catatan mengenai
jenis-jenis di Asia Tenggara. 191 pp. IUCN, Inst. Technology Bandung, World Bank.
[Also published in an English-language version with the title “Turtles and crocodiles of
insular southeast Asia & New Guinea’.]

Jaekel, O. 1911. Die fossilen Schildkrétenreste von Trinil. Pp. 75-81, pl. XV im Selenka, M.L.
& Blanckenhorn, M. (Eds.), Die Pithecanthropus-Schichten auf Java. Geologische und
Paldontologische Ergebnisse der Trinil-Expedition (1907 und 1908). Engelmann, Leipzig.

McCord, W.P. & Ouni, M.J. 2003. Flapshell and giant Asian softshell turtles. Reptilia (GB),
26: 59-64.

210 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003

McCord, W.P. & Pritchard, P.C.H. 2003. A review of the softshell turtles of the genus Chitra,
with description of new taxa from Myanmar and Indonesia (Java). Hamadryad, 27: 11—56.

Nutaphand, W. 1986. Manlai. The world’s biggest softshell turtle. Thai Zoological Magazine,
1(4): 64-70.

Nutaphand, W. 1990. Softshelled Turtles. Thai Zoological Magazine, 5(56): 93-104.

Orenstein, R. 2001. Turtles, tortoises & terrapins—survivors in armor. 308 pp. Key Porter
Books, Canada & Firefly Books, New York.

Pritchard, P.C.H. 2001. Observations on body size, sympatry, and niche divergence in softshell
turtles (Trionychidae). Chelonian Conservation and Biology, 4(1): 5—27.

Sharma, D.S.K. & Tisen, O.B. 2000. Freshwater turtle and tortoise utilization and conser-
vation status in Malaysia. Pp. 120-128 in Van Dik, P.P., Stuart, B.L. & Rhodin, A.G.J.
(Eds.), Asian Turtle Trade; Proceedings of a workshop on conservation and trade of
freshwater turtles and tortoises in Asia. Phnom Penh. Chelonian Research Monographs, 2.

Stuart, B.L., Van Dijk, P.P. & Hendrie, D.B. 2001. Photographic guide to the turtles of
Thailand, Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia. 84 pp. Wildlife Conservation Society, Phnom
Penh.

Techacharoensukchera, V. 1991. Illustrations of Thai Chitra. Journal of Wildlife in Thailand,
1(1): 8-14.

Thirakhupt, K. & Van Dijk, P.P. 1994. Species diversity and conservation of turtles of western
Thailand. Natural History Bulletin Siam Society, 42: 207-259.

Webb, R. 1995. Redescription and neotype designation of Pelochelys bibroni from southern
New Guinea (Testudines: Trionychidae). Chelonian Conservation and Biology, 1(A4):
301-310.

Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 60: 94.

Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).

ali WES. pes

Chitra c. javanensis McCord Pritchard, 2003, the recently described subspecies of Chitra chitra
Nutaphand, 1986 found on the Indonesian island of Java. :

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003 211

Case 3266

Palaeortyx phasianoides Milne-Edwards, 1869 (Aves, Galliformes):
proposed conservation of usage of the specific name by the designation
of a neotype

U.B. Gohlich

Department fiir Umwelt- und Geowissenschaften, Sektion Paldontologie,
Richard-Wagner-Strasse 10, D-80333 Munich, Germany
(e-mail: u.goehlich@Irz.uni-muenchen.de, u.goehlich@web.de)

C. Mourer-Chauviré

Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Centre des Sciences de la Terre,
27-43 Boulevard du 11 Novembre 1918, F-69622 Villeurbanne Cedex,
France (e-mail: Cecile.Mourer@univ-lyon1.fr)

Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 75.6 of the Code, is to
conserve the current usage of the name Palaeortyx phasianoides Milne-Edwards, 1869
for a species of fossil quail from the Miocene (family PHASIANIDAE) by the designation
of a neotype. This is necessary because the specimen designated as lectotype in 2000
is not the species currently named P. phasianoides. It is proposed that this lectotype
designation be set aside and a neotype designated in accord with accustomed
understanding and usage of the name P. phasianoides.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Aves; Galliformes; PHASIANIDAE; quails;
Palaeortyx phasianoides; Miocene; Europe.

1. In 1869 (p. 230), Milne-Edwards described the new phasianid genus Palaeortyx
with three new species from the Lower Miocene site of Saint-Gérand-le-Puy, France.
He designated (p. 230) one of the new species, Palaeortyx gallica (p. 230), as the type
species. Another species, P. phasianoides (p. 237), was based on a fossil scapula and
a fragmentary humerus (a humerus shaft with the proximal and distal ends broken
off). Both syntypes are housed in the Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle
(MNHN) in Paris. Milne-Edwards (1869, pp. 237-239) first described the scapula
(specimen no. MNHN Avy 2895) and then attributed the humerus shaft (MNHN Av
2896) to this species (“L’humérus je pense appartenir a cette espéce . . .”), followed by
its description. Both syntypes were figured (inverted) by Milne-Edwards (1869, pl.
130, figs. 22-27).

2. During the course of further excavations in the 19th and 20th centuries, more
material of Palaeortyx phasianoides was found at the type locality Saint-Gérand-le-
Puy. This topotypic material is housed in the collections of the Université Claude
Bernard, Lyon 1, of the Muséum Lyon, of the Muséum National d°’Histoire
Naturelle, Paris, and of the Bayerische Staatssammlung fiir Palaontologie und
Geologie, Munich. We are currently investigating this material. In addition,

212 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003

Palaeortyx phasianoides has been described from a number of other Miocene
localities in Europe: La Grive (France, Middle Miocene; Ballmann, 1969a):;
Wintershof-West (Germany, Lower Miocene; Ballmann 1969b): Dolnice (Czech
Republic, Lower Miocene; Svec, 1980). Palaeortyx phasianoides is thus a very well
known and often mentioned species.

3. Ballmann (1969b) published a description of the fossil birds, including Palae-
ortyx phasianoides, from Wintershof-West, Germany. Ballmann was the first to
recognise that the fragmentary syntype humerus (MNHN Avy 2896) from Saint-
Gérand-le-Puy was much too large for attribution to P. phasianoides and noted
(p. 31): “Der von ihm [Milne-Edwards] auf Tafel 130, figs. 26-27 abgebildete und auf
S. 239 beschriebene Humerus, den er zu Palaeortyx phasianoides rechnet, kann
infolge seiner wesentlich gr6%eren Ausmafe nicht zu dieser Art gehoren’. Ballmann
recorded that, although badly preserved, the humerus belonged to a galliform. At the
same time he referred five other humeri (MNHN Av 2912-2916) found at Saint-
Gérand-le-Puy, and clearly differing from the syntype humerus (MNHN Avy 2896), to
P. phasianoides. Consequently, the syntype-scapula should have been fixed as
lectotype, but unfortunately Ballmann (1969b) failed to do so explicitely.

4. Recently, Mlikovsky (2000, p. 93) studied the syntypes of Palaeortyx phasian-
oides and a small part of the topotypic material from the Muséum National
d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris. Mlikovsky ignored Ballmann’s (1969b) identification,
although he cited the publication. He fixed the fragmentary syntype humerus as the
lectotype of P. phasianoides, arguing the humerus to be the more diagnostic element.
We agree that generally an avian humerus is more diagnostic than a scapula, but not
if the proximal and distal ends are lacking as in the syntype humerus. However, in the
following paragraph of the same publication, Mlikovsky determined his lectotype
humerus to be a pathological humerus of the anatid Anas blanchardi Milne-Edwards,
1863 (currently Mionetta blanchardi; Anseriformes, family ANSERIDAE). He noted that,
as a consequence, the galliform species name Palaeortyx phasianoides was a junior
subjective synonym of the anseriform species name Mionetta blanchardi. The anatid
taxon M. blanchardi is one of the most common avian species (some thousands of
specimens) in the Saint-Gérand-le-Puy deposits (detailed descriptions were given by
Cheneval, 1983, 1987 and a tarsometatarsus lectotype was designated by Cheneval.
1983). Its osteology characterizes M-. blanchardi as a true anatid that is clearly
distinguishable from P. phasianoides. Until Mlikovsky’s (2000) action, the name
P. phasianoides had been universally accepted and much used in the taxonomic sense
of a galliform (see, for example, Milne-Edwards, 1869, pp. 237-239: Lydekker, 1891,
p. 139; Gaillard, 1908, pp. 97, 109; Lambrecht, 1933, p. 452; Brodkorb, 1967, p. 112:
Ballmann, 1969a, pp. 178-180: Ballmann, 1969b, pp. 31-33: Svec, 1980, pp. 383-384:
Bochenski, 1997, p. 308; Mourer-Chauvirée, 2000, p. 481; Cheneval, 2000, p. 344).

5. Additionally, in a reverse of Ballmann’s (1969b) argument, Mlikovsky (2000,
p. 93) recorded that the syntype scapula of Palaeortyx phasianoides could not be
considered a phasianid and that it was too small to belong to the same species as the
lectotype humerus. He noted that the taxonomic identity of the scapula remained
unresolved.

6. In our view, Mlikovsky’s (2000) actions were based on incorrect identifications.
He recognized correctly that the humerus (MNHN Av 2896) that he fixed as the
lectotype of Palaeortyx phasianoides corresponds well with a further, complete

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003 213

humerus from Saint-Gérand-le-Puy in the Hoffstetter collection in Paris (newly
numbered MNHN SG 13734), which was labelled (in handwriting) as “Anas
consobrina (taille M. blanchardiy. Mlikovsky accepted the humerus MNHN SG
13734 as “Mionetta blanchardi’ but, because of its morphological differences in
comparison with the general morphology of the humeri of this species, he mistakenly
concluded that it was a pathological specimen. In 2002 the authors restudied the
humerus and recognized it as typical of the primitive galliform species Ameripodius
alexis Mourer-Chauviré, 2000 (family QUERCYMEGAPODIIDAE), described from Saint-
Gérand-le-Puy and based on several bones of the appendicular skeleton housed in the
Collection of the Université Claude Bernard, Lyon 1, and the Muséum National
d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris. The lectotype humerus of P. phasianoides (MNHN Av
2896) is also this species. Moreover, Mlikovsky’s statement that the syntype scapula
(his paralectotype, MNHN Av 2895) is not a phasianid is incorrect. Our study of the
syntype scapula and the entire material of P. phasianoides from Saint-Gérand-le-Puy
shows that it is typical of a phasianid and therefore would have been the correct
choice for the lectotype.

7. So far, no other authors have commented on the suitability of Mlikovsky’s
(2000) designation. Mlikovsky did not respect Ballmann’s (1969b) exclusion of the
humerus from the syntypes. Instead he designated it as the lectotype and at the same
time determined it erroneously as a pathological anatid. We therefore propose that
the lectotype be set aside and that a neotype be designated in accord with the
accustomed usage of the name phasianoides. This action would avoid considerable
disruption and confusion affecting the involved species Palaeortyx phasianoides,
Mionetta blanchardi and Ameripodius alexis. The proposed neotype is the first-
described syntype of P. phasianoides, the scapula (MNHN Av 2895) from Saint-
Gérand-le-Puy, France, housed in the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris.

8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:

(1) to use its plenary power to set aside all previous type fixations for the nominal

species Palaeortyx phasianoides Milne-Edwards, 1869 and to designate the
scapula from Saint-Gerand-le-Puy, France (specimen no. MNHN Av 2895 in
the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris) as the neotype;

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name

phasianoides Milne-Edwards, 1869, as published in the binomen Palaeortyx
phasianoides and as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above.

References

Ballmann, P. 1969a. Les oiseaux miocénes de La-Grive-Saint-Alban (Isére). Geobios, 2:
157-204.

Ballmann, P. 1969b. Die Vogel aus der altburdigalen Spaltenfiillung von Wintershof (West) bei
Eichstatt in Bayern. Zitteliana, 1: 5—60.

Bochenski, Z. 1997. List of European fossil bird species. Acta Zoologica Cracoviensia, 40:
293-333

Brodkorb, P. 1967. Catalogue of fossil birds, part 3 (Ralliformes, Ichthyornithiformes,
Charadriformes). Bulletin of the Florida State Museum (Biological Sciences), 11(3):
99-220.

Cheneval, J. 1983. Les Anatidae (Aves, Anseriformes) du Gisement Aquitanien de Saint-
Gérand-le-Puy (Allier, France). Pp. 85-98 in Buffeteaut, E., Mazin, J.M. & Salmon, E.
(Eds.), Actes du symposium paléontologique Georges Cuvier. Montbéliard.

214 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003

Cheneval, J. 1987. Les Anatidae (Aves, Anseriformes) du Miocene de France. Revision
systématique et évolution. In Mourer-Chauvire, C. (Ed.), L°évolution des Oiseaux d’apres
le Témoignage des Fossiles. Documents des Laboratoires de Géologie Lyon, 99: 137-157.

Cheneval, J. 2000. L’avifaune de Sansan. Jn Ginsburg, L. (Ed.), La faune miocene de Sansan
et son environnement. Mémoires du Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle (Paris), 183:
321-388.

Gaillard, C. 1908. Les oiseaux des phosphorites du Quercy. Annales de I’ Université de Lyon
(Nouvelle Série), 23: 1-178.

Lambrecht, K. 1933. Handbuch der Palaeornithologie. 1024 pp. Berlin.

Lydekker, R.R. 1891. Catalogue of the fossil birds. 368 pp. British Museum, London.

Milne-Edwards, A. 1869. Recherches anatomiques et paléontologiques pour servir a Uhistoire des
oiseaux fossiles de la France, vol. 2 (1869-1871), pp. 237-239. Atlas, vol. 2, pl. 130. Paris.
[Published 1868-1871, see Zoological Record, vols. 5—8; date of publication of Palaeortyx
phasianoides is 1869, see Zoological Record, vol. 6, p. 93).

Mlikovsky, J. 2000. Early Miocene quails (Aves: Phasianidae) from Saint-Gérand-le-Puy,
France. Casopis Ndrodniho Muzea Rada Prirodovedna, 169(1—-4): 91-96.

Mourer-Chauviré, C. 2000. A new species of Ameripodius (Aves: Galliformes: Quercymega-
podiidae) from the lower Miocene of France. Palaeontology, 43(3): 481-493.

Svec, P. 1980. Lower Miocene birds from Dolnice (Cheb basin) western Bohemia. Casopis pro
Mineralogii a Geologii, 25(4): 377-387.

Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 60: 94.

Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive‘ Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).

Nn

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003 21

Comment on the draft proposal to emend the Code with respect to trace fossils
(Proposal; see BZN 60: 141-142)

P.K. Tubbs (formerly Executive Secretary, International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature)

16 New Road, Ham, Richmond, Surrey TW10 7HY, U.K.

The comment by Bertling et al. suggests that the Code’s provisions relating to
ichnotaxa (taxa based on fossils of animal ‘works’) need emending, but it is based on
definitions of ‘work of an animal’, ‘ichnotaxon’ and ‘trace fossil’ (see their para. 2)
which differ from the meanings in the Code. When the meanings given in the Code
Articles and Glossary are used, the supposed difficulty disappears and there is no
need for a Code emendment.

Article 1.2.1 states that the Code applies to “names based on the fossilized work of
organisms (ichnotaxa), ... ’, and in the Glossary ‘work of an animal’ is defined
as “The result of the activity of an animal (e.g. burrows, ... galls, ... nests, ...
cocoons, ... tracks), but not part of the animal. The term applies to trace fossils (see
ichnotaxon)...’. Article 42.2.1 refers to ‘names for trace fossils (ichnotaxa)’. Under
Article 72.5.1, ‘an example of the fossilized work of an animal’ is eligible to be the
name-bearing type of a nominal taxon. Contrary to the interpretation of Bertling
et al. names based on fossilized galls, cocoons, etc. are ichnotaxa, exactly like those
based on fossilized tracks. All these fossils, not of animals themselves but resulting
from their activities, are commonly called trace fossils.

The confusion perhaps arises from the Glossary, where an ichnotaxon is said to be
‘A taxon based on the fossilized work of an animal, including fossilized trails, tracks
or burrows (trace fossils) made by an animal’. This wording (carried forward from
the previous edition of the Code) does confirm that taxa based on fossil galls, cocoons
etc. are ichnotaxa, but it should not be interpreted to mean that such specimens
cannot be called trace fossils. However, since the present authors have had doubts it
would have been better if ‘(trace fossils)’ had been placed before the first comma, or
even omitted altogether, so that the term could not be thought to have a very
restricted meaning. Comparison of Articles 1.2.1 and 42.2.1 (see above) shows that
‘fossilized works of animals’ and ‘trace fossils’ are synonymous and that nominal
taxa based on such material are ichnotaxa.

Bertling et al. propose (para. 3) to define ‘work of an animal’ as ‘trace fossils
(including burrows, . . . nests) as well as secretions such as eggs, . . . pupal cases, .. .
and plant galls’. However, ‘works’ do not have to be fossil. Eggs (and most pupal
cases) are not secretions (nor indeed are plant galls), but are life stages or parts of
animals, not ‘works’; nominal taxa based on their fossils are not ichnotaxa but are
subject to all the normal provisions of the Code (see Article 17.3). The present
definition is both shorter and more accurate.

Bertling et al. (para. 4) refer to the nomenclatural treatment of ichnofamilies, and
say that criteria for their establishment should not differ from those of other
ichnotaxa. There are in fact no such special criteria. In particular, it is recommended
that the principle of typification should be extended to ichnofamilies. However, this
principle already applies in the usual way, since Articles 29 and 63 apply to the
typification and formation of ichnofamilies exactly as to other family taxa. The only

216 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003

difference between ichnofamilies and ‘normal’ families lies in Article 23.7.3, which
states that names established for an ichnotaxon [at any rank] do not compete in
priority with names based on animals themselves.

A further point made by Bertling et al. is that Article 1.3.6 should be revoked;
this allows the availability of names established before 1931 that were based on the
‘work’ of extant (i.e. not extinct) animals. It should however be noted that these
non-fossil names do not relate to ichnotaxa and are subject to the Code’s normal
provisions. The authors state that they are not aware of any such names that are
in use: nor am I, but this does not mean that they do not exist! As Bertling et al.
say, any names that have passed out of use can be dealt with under the Code in
the usual way. The revocation of Article 1.3.6 would also affect other provisions
(such as Article 23.3.2.3), and it might raise unforeseen problems of homonymy.
As a general principle it is rash to revoke or emend any Code provision unless
there is a clear need to do so and the consequences have been taken into account.

Bertling et al. have formed the impression that the Code draws a distinction
between fossilized tracks and other ‘works’ such as galls, coprolites and nests. This is
not the case (and the previous edition used the same wordings). I might add that
during the formulation of the present Code, many ichnologists made suggestions, and
these led inter alia to the requirement that after 2000 new ichnogenera must have a
type species (Articles 13.3.3, 66.1). I do not believe that Bertling et al. have
demonstrated the need for any changes to the Code’s provisions, but it would be
helpful if future editions were to include a Glossary entry for ‘trace fossil’, making it
clear that the term is synonymous with ‘fossilized work of an animal’. As a member
of the former Editorial Committee, I regret that this omission was overlooked during
the revision of the Glossary.

In conclusion, I should stress that the references to trace fossils in the Code relate
to the works only of animals since the remit of the Commission is restricted to
zoological nomenclature. The word ‘organisms’ was used in Article 1.2.1 because the
nature of the agent responsible for a trace fossil is often not obvious; if the agent is
known not to be animal the Code does not apply.

Comments on the neotypification of Protists, especially Ciliates (Protozoa,
Ciliophora)
(General Article; see BZN 59: 165-169; 60: 48-49, 143)

(1) Michael A. Sleigh
Biodiversity and Ecology Division, School of Biological Sciences, University of
Southampton, Bassett Crescent East, Southampton SO16 7PX, U.K.

As the Managing Editor of the European Journal of Protistology, 1 support
Wilhelm Foissner’s proposal. In his paper, Foissner has written in favour of the
practice of neotypification of species, with good quality type material preserved in
ways that portray diagnostic features and lodged in collections that permit re-
examination and comparison with other specimens. In almost every issue of our
journal we publish papers concerned with the description of species which require
comparison with inadequately described and untypified species, many of them

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003 217

originally named in the 19th or early 20th centuries. Often authors conclude that a
newly-collected specimen, which can be fully described and preserved, cannot be
distinguished from a previously illustrated, but inadequately described, type. Such
studies provide a basis for valuable neotypification to stabilise the nomenclature for
future work.

However, very often the newly described specimens were not collected in the same
location as the originally named organism. By strict application of Article 75.3.6 of
the Code, the newly described specimen cannot be regarded as a neotype because it
was found in a different locality from the original type. Many, indeed probably most,
protozoa are cosmopolitan, and are also very patchily distributed according to their
microhabitat requirements. These microhabitats are usually transient, so that the
species may have become extinct in the type location long ago, but may be abundant
in other places where the conditions now suit them. Therefore, to insist that neotype
material of protozoa must be obtained from the locality of original discovery may be
unrealistic, or even impossible. The same probably applies to microscopic organisms
of other groups occupying similar ecological niches. If this locality restriction is
formally waived in the case of protozoa, then more of the taxonomists working with
protozoa will be encouraged to deposit useful neotype material of the species they
study in suitable type collections. In addition, journal editors will be in a position to
encourage, or insist on, such deposition.

(2) Inacio Domingos da Silva Neto
Instituto de Biologia, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

I support Wilhelm Foissner’s proposal that the neotypes of protists, especially
Ciliates, should be freed from the type locality regulation of Article 75.3.6 of the
Code.

(3) Jerzy Sikora

Department of Cell Biology, Nencki Institute of Experimental Biology, Polish
Academy of Sciences, Warszawa, Poland

Wilhelm Foissner presents a convincing argument concerning the neotypication of
protists. As Editor of Acta Protozoologica, 1 am interested in clarification of
nomenclatural problems. Not being a specialist in systematics and taxonomy, I rely
on Dr. Foissner’s opinion and expertise. He undoubtedly enjoys the respect of people
dealing with protists, especially heterotrophic ciliates. Therefore I consider his appeal
to the Commission concerning waiving Article 75.3.6 of the Code to be a reasonable
and valuable initiative.

Comments on the proposed conservation of usage of Acmacodera Eschscholtz, 1829
and Acmaeoderella Cobos, 1955 (Insecta, Coleoptera) by designation of Buprestis
cylindrica Fabricius, 1775 as the type species of Acmaeodera

(Case 3258; see BZN 60: 31—33)

(1) Vladimir Sakalian

Institute of Zoology, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1 Tzar Osvoboditel Blvd.,
1000 Sofia, Bulgaria

218 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003

I support this application, because it will ensure stability by conserving the current
usage by all contemporary authors of these generic names.

(2) Ted C. MacRae
Monsanto, 700 Chesterfield Parkway West, Chesterfield, Mo 63017, U.S.A.

I support this application, because adherence to priority would require massive
and unjustified nomenclatural rearrangement.

(3) Svatopluk Bily
Department of Entomology, National Museum, Prague, Czech Republic

I support this application, because it is the right approach to maintaining
nomenclatural stability in this group of beetles.

(4) Allen Sundholm
96 Turrella Street, Turrella 2205, Sydney, N.S.W., Australia

I support this application, in the interests of stability.

Comment on the proposed precedence of Ovula gisortiana Passy, 1859 over Cypraea
coombii J. de C. Sowerby in Dixon, 1850.

(Case 3220; see BZN 59: 173-175)

J.A. Todd

Department of Palaeontology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road,
London SW7 SBD, U.K.

I write in opposition to the proposal to give precedence to Gisortia gisortiana
(Passy, 1859) over G. coombii (J. de C? Sowerby in Dixon, 1850) should they be
considered to be synonymous.

Since Schilder’s redescription of Gisortia coombii (J. de C. Sowerby in Dixon, 1850)
in 1929 from five specimens (one of which he subsequently (Schilder, 1930, p. 128)
correctly recognized as a probable French specimen referable to G. tuberculosa
(Duclos)), only four additional specimens of this species have found their way into
the Natural History Museum collections in London. I know of no other specimens
elsewhere in public museums. Through examination, I have been able to precisely
localize all of these specimens in a modern stratigraphical context. Labels on
recently collected material, combined with the preservation, matrix and contained
fossils in the material Schilder examined, indicate that this species has been collected
from only a thin stratigraphical interval (units E211 to E4) of the Earnley Formation
(previously part of the Lower Bracklesham Beds) of early Lutetian age from
Bracklesham Bay, West Sussex (see Curry et al., 1978). This is despite these
highly fossiliferous foreshore rock exposures being regularly exposed and
collected from by many persons over at least the past 25 years. Gisortia coombii is

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003 219

evidently a rare species with a very limited stratigraphic range, but that does not
make it a forgotten one.

As Gisortia coombii has been found very rarely and from just one small locality in
Britain, it is hardly surprising that its name has received limited use. Nevertheless,
Pacaud & Dolin omit to mention that this species was featured (and considered valid)
in the systematic compendium of Schilder (1930) that is still the most complete
treatment of this group. This work cannot be considered merely “a nomenclator or
other index or list of names’ (Article 23.9.6 of the Code), but a brief yet thorough
systematic treatment, with identification keys to all then recognized species, complete
synonymies, details of individual specimens, two tables of shell measurements and
character states and two plates of illustrations.

Notwithstanding Schilder’s work, the systematics of Gisortia species is still very
uncertain for the six reasons that he enumerated in 1930. Of these, two (his points
4 and 6) are particularly germane with respect to the current application. First,
‘many specimens are known only from one of a few species, so that some may be
varieties of other species, for the variability of some common species is rather
considerable’ (Schilder, 1930, pp. 118-119). Secondly, ‘most writers have had no
opportunity to examine original specimens from foreign countries and to compare
them with the species of their own country’ (p. 119). Quite simply, Pacaud &
Dolin fail to make a convincing case for the identity of G. gisortiana and
G. coombii, though it is possible that future detailed systematic work might
establish this. No new data have been published on the newly collected French
material to which the authors allude. The current considerable uncertainties in
species status are highlighted by Dolin & Dolin (1983) considering G. gisortiana as
synonymous with another nominal species, G. gigantea (Quenstedt, 1836), but
that opinion, which is identical with Vredenburg’s (1927), is not mentioned in
this application.

Gisortia species are largely characterized by their general proportions and the
features developed in the thick layers of callus that cover their shells (Vredenburg,
1927; Schilder, 1930). At present, there are neither studies of intrapopulational
variation among putative adults, nor ontogenetic studies of the development of the
callus in any one species. Consequently it is quite uncertain how specimens from
widely separated localities, of differing sizes and possibly ontogenetic ages, can be
adequately compared in a systematic context (compare the size of the type specimens:
Pacaud & Dolin, figs. 1 and 2). Gisortia shells appear to have relatively few discrete
and constant characters and it seems likely that fruitful systematic re-evaluation of
this group will require the use of morphometric methods.

To conclude, I regard the current application as essentially taxonomic rather
than nomenclatural in nature. The proposed taxonomic act is unsubstantiated
and premature. I regard each of the four actions proposed in this case as
unnecessary.

Additional references

Curry, D., King, A.D., King, C. & Stinton, F.C. 1978. The Bracklesham Beds (Eocene) of
Bracklesham Bay and Selsey, Sussex. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association, 88:
243-254.

220 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003

Dolin, C. & Dolin, L. 1983. Révision des Triviacea et Cypraeacea (Mollusca, Prosobranchiata)
éocénes récoltés dans les localités de Gan (Tuilerie et Acot) et Bosdarros (Pyrénées
Atlantiques, France). Mededelingen van de Werkgroep voor Tertiaire en Kwartaire
Geologie, 20(1): 5-48.

Quenstedt, F.A. 1836. Beitrage zur Petrefaktenkunde. Archiv fiir Naturgeschichte, (2)1:
245-250.

Comment on proposed conservation of the usage of the names Phymaturus Grayenhorst,
1838 and Lacerta palluma Molina, 1782 (currently Phymaturus palluma; Reptilia,
Sauria) by designation of a neotype for Lacerta palluma Molina, 1782

(Case 3225; see BZN 60: 38-41; 58)

Hobart M. Smith
EPO Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 50309-0334, U.S.A.

I support this application, as it is important to conserve current usage of these two
widely used names.

Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Macropodus concolor
Ahl, 1937 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes)

(Case 3255; see BZN 60: 206-207)

Hans-Joacim Paepke

clo Museum fiir Naturkunde der Humboldt- Universitat, Institut fiir Systematische
Zoologie, Invalidenstrasse 43, D-10115 Berlin, Germany

Axel Zarske

Staatliche Naturhistorische Sammlungen, Ichthyologische Abteilung, Kénigsbriicker
Landstrasse 159, D-01109 Dresden, Germany

We strongly support the application by Schindler & Staeck to conserve the
specific name Macropodus concolor Ahl, 1937 (family OSPHRONEMIDAE). Since its
introduction the senior synonym M. spechti Schreitmiller, 1936 had not been used as
the valid name for the species until it was resurrected by Freyhof & Herder (2002).
Their action to replace the long accepted specific name of M. concolor does not
promote stability and was in contravention of the Preamble and Article 23.2
of the Code.

Unfortunately the problem of M. concolor versus M. spechti is only the tip of the
iceberg. A number of similar ornamental fish names like M. spechti (mostly of
infrasubspecific rank) are hidden in the old popular aquarist literature. Such names
were often published without correct diagnosis or designation of type specimens and
are therefore generally disregarded in favour of junior synonyms based on a solid
scientific description like MM. concolor.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003 221

We fear that other ichthyologists could follow the example given by Freyhof &
Herder (2002). More names still hidden in the old popular literature could be
exhumed in favour of the Principle of Priority and contrary to the promotion of
stability. See Kullander & Britz (2002) concerning the replacement of the well known
name Badis burmanicus Ahl in Arnold & Ahl, 1936 by the name Badis rubra
Schreitmiiller, 1923. Such a trend would lead to instability of nomenclature and cause
unnecessary work for the Commission. Therefore we strongly support Schindler &
Staeck’s application.

Additional reference

Kullander, S.O. & Britz, R. 2002. Revision of the family Badidae (Teleostei: Perciformes) with
description of a new genus and ten new species. Ichthyological Exploration of Freshwaters,
13(4): 295-372.

222 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003

OPINION 2046 (Case 3185)

Criconema Hofmanner & Menzel, 1914 (Nematoda): Eubostrichus
guernei Certes, 1899 designated as the type species

Abstract. The Commission has ruled that current usage of the generic names
Criconema Hofmanner & Menzel, 1914 and Criconemoides Taylor, 1936 is main-
tained by the designation of Eubostrichus guernei Certes, 1889 as the type species of
the free-living soil nematode genus Criconema.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Nematoda; Tylenchida; crIcONEMATIDAE;
Criconema; Criconemoides; Criconema guernet; Criconemoides morgense.

Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power all previous fixations of type species for Criconema
Hofmanner & Menzel, 1914 are hereby set aside and Eubostrichus guernei
Certes, 1889 is designated as the type species.
The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology:
(a) Criconema Hofmanner & Menzel, 1914 (gender: neuter), type species by
designation in (1) above Eubostrichus guernei Certes, 1889;
(b) Criconemoides Taylor, 1936 (gender: masculine), type species by original
designation Criconema morgense Hofmanner & Menzel, 1914.
(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology:
(a) guernei Certes, 1889, as published in the binomen Eubostrichus guernei
(specific name of the type species of Criconema Hofmanner & Menzel,
1914):
(b) morgense Hofmanner & Menzel, 1914, as published in the binomen
Criconema morgense (specific name of the type species of Criconemoides
Taylor, 1936).

(2

wa

History of Case 3185

An application to conserve the current usage of the generic names Criconema
Hofmanner & Menzel, 1914 and Criconemoides Taylor, 1936 by designating
Eubostrichus guernei Certes, 1889 as the type species of Criconema was received from
P.A.A. Loof (Department of Nematology, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The
Netherlands), 1. Andrassy (Eétvés Lorand Tudomdnyegyetem, Allatrendszertani és
6kologiai Tanszek, Budapest, Hungary), M. Luc (6 rue Boutard, Neuilly-sur-Seine,
France), D.J. Raski (1912 Alpine Place, Davis, California, U.S.A.), M.R. Siddiqi
(Commonwealth Institute of Parasitology, St. Albans, U.K.) and W.M. Wouts
(Landcare Research, Auckland, New Zealand) on 18 December 2000. After
correspondence the case was published in BZN 58: 179-181 (September 2001). The
title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website.
No comments on this case were received.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003

in)
i)
eS)

Decision of the Commission

On 1 March 2003 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 58: 180. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 2003
the votes were as follows: 23 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, no
Commissioners voted AGAINST, Bouchet abstained, no vote was received from
Bohme.

Original references

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:

Criconema Hofmanner & Menzel, 1914, Zoologischer Anzeiger, 44: 88.

Criconemoides Taylor, 1936, Transactions of the American Microscopical Society, 55: 406.

guernei, Eubostrichus, Certes, 1889, Mission Scientifique du Cap Horn (1882-1883), vol. 6,
Zoologie, p. L.48.

morgense, Criconema, Hofmanner & Menzel, 1914, Zoologischer Anzeiger, 44: 90.

224

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003

OPINION 2047 (Case 2652)

CHORISTIDAE Verrill, 1882 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): spelling emended
to CHORISTEIDAE, SO removing the homonymy with CHORISTIDAE
Esben-Petersen, 1915 (Insecta, Mecoptera)

Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the homonymy between two family-
group names: CHORISTIDAE Verrill, 1882 (Gastropoda) and cHorisTIDAE Esben-
Petersen, 1915 (Mecoptera) is eliminated by emending the spelling of Verrill’s
name tO CHORISTEIDAE. Verrill’s family-group name is based on the generic name
Choristes Carpenter in Dawson, 1872. Esben-Petersen’s family-group name is
based on the widely-used name of the Australian scorpion-fly genus Chorista Klug,

1836.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Gastropoda; Mecoptera; CHORISTEIDAE; CHOR-
ISTIDAE; Choristes; Chorista; scorpion-fiy; Australia.

Ruling

(1)

(4)

Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that for the purposes of Article 29
of the Code, the stem of the generic name Choristes Carpenter in Dawson, 1872
is CHORISTE- (Gastropoda).

The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names

in Zoology:

(a) Chorista Klug, 1836 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent
monotypy Chorista australis Klug, 1838 (Mecoptera);

(b) Choristes Carpenter in Dawson, 1872 (gender: masculine), type
species by monotypy Choristes elegans Carpenter in Dawson, 1872
(Gastropoda).

The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names

in Zoology: -

(a) australis Klug, 1838, as published in the binomen Chorista australis
(specific name of the type species of Chorista Klug, 1836) (Mecoptera);
(b) elegans Carpenter in Dawson, 1872, as published in the binomen Choristes
elegans (specific name of the type species of Choristes Carpenter in

Dawson, 1872) (Gastropoda).

The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group

Names in Zoology:

(a) CHORISTIDAE Esben-Petersen, 1915 (type genus Chorista Klug, 1836)
(Mecoptera);

(b) cHorRisTEIDAE Verrill, 1882 (spelling emended under the plenary power in (1)
above from CHoRISTIDAE Verrill, 1882; type genus Choristes Carpenter in
Dawson, 1872) (Gastropoda).

The name cuoristiDAE Verrill, 1882 (spelling emended to CHORISTEIDAE by the

ruling in (1) above) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and

Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology (Gastropoda).

i)
i)
nN

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003

History of Case 2652

An application to remove the homonymy between the family-group names
CHORISTIDAE Verrill, 1882 (Gastropoda) and CHoRIsTIDAE Esben-Petersen, 1915
(Mecoptera) was received from Alan R. Kabat (Museum of Comparative Zoology,
Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, U.S.A.) on 5 April 1988. After correspondence
the case was published in BZN 46: 156-160 (September 1989). Notice of the case was
sent to appropriate journals. No comments on this case were received.

Decision of the Commission

On | September 1990 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 46: 158. At the close of the voting period on | December
1990 the votes were as follows: 25 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals,
2 Commissioners voted AGAINST, no vote was received from Halvorsen.

Voting against, Heppell raised taxonomic questions relating to the possible
misidentification of the genus on which Verrill based his family-group name. After
deliberation it was considered that if any additional taxonomic information had a
bearing on the stability of the names in this case then it should be the subject of a
separate application under Article 41 of the Code.

Original references

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an
Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion:

australis, Chorista, Klug, 1838, Physikalische Abhandlungen der K6niglichen Akademie der
Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1836: 101.

Chorista Klug, 1836, Bericht tiber die zur Bekanntmachung geeigneten Verhandlungen der
K6niglichen Preussichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1: 54.

CHORISTEIDAE Verrill, 1882, Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, 5(2):
540.

Choristes Carpenter in Dawson, 1872, The Canadian Naturalist and Quarterly Journal of
Science, (n.s.)6(4): 392.

CHORISTIDAE Esben-Petersen, 1915, Entomologiske Meddelelser, (2)5: 232.

CHORISTIDAE Verrill, 1882, Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, 5(2):
540.

elegans, Choristes, Carpenter in Dawson, 1872, The Canadian Naturalist and Quarterly Journal
of Science, (n.s.)6(4): 392.

226 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003

OPINION 2048 (Case 3212)

Thalassema taenioides Ikeda, 1904 (currently Ikeda taenioides;
Echiura): specific name conserved

Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the specific name of Ikeda taenioides (Ikeda,
1904) for a species of echiuran from the coasts of Japan is conserved by the
suppression of Thalassema halotaeniai Ikeda, 1901 and T. taeniaides Ikeda, 1902, two
earlier names that have remained unused since publication.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Echiura; Heteromyota; IKEDINAE:; Ikeda: Ikeda
taenioides; Japan.

Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power the following names are hereby suppressed for the
purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of
Homonymy:
(a) halotaeniai Ikeda, 1901, as published in the binomen Thalassema halotae-
Nal,
(b) taeniaides Ikeda, 1902, as published in the binomen Thalassema taeniaides.
The name /keda Wharton, 1913 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy
Thalassema taenioides Ikeda, 1904, is hereby placed on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology.
The name taenioides Ikeda, 1904, as published in the binomen Thalassema
taenioides (specific name of the type species of Ikeda Wharton, 1913), is hereby
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.
The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology:
(a) halotaeniai Ikeda, 1901, as published in the binomen Thalassema halotae-
niai and as suppressed in (1)(a) above;
(b) taeniaides Ikeda, 1902, as published in the binomen Thalassema taeniaides
and as suppressed in (1)(b) above.

(2

wa

(3

ma

(4

~—

History of Case 3212

An application to conserve the specific name of Ikeda taenioides (Ikeda, 1904) for
a species of echiuran from the coasts of Japan by the suppression of two older,
unused names, Thalassema halotaeniai Ikeda, 1901 and T. taeniaides Ikeda, 1902, was
received from Teruaki Nishikawa (The Nagoya University Museum, Chikusa-ku,
Nagoya, Japan) on 11 July 2001. After correspondence the case was published in
BZN 58: 277-279 (December 2001). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were
published on the Commission’s website. A comment in support of the case was
published in BZN 59: 130.

Decision of the Commission
On 1 March 2003 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 58: 278. At the close of the voting period on | June 2003

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003 227

the votes were as follows: 22 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, 2 Commis-
sioners (Bouchet and Ng) voted AGAINST, no vote was received from Bohme.

Voting against, Ng commented that ‘the species now called T. taenioides may be
part of a species complex or it may be recognized as maybe 2 or 3 cryptic species and
what is now called 7. taeniaides would remain as just one species. The possible
absence of types compounds the problem, i.e. whether to treat the three names as
objective synonyms by (1) selection of a lectotype (if the existing fragments are
identified as types and deemed useful taxonomically) and then make this lectotype the
simultaneous lectotype of 7. taenioides and T. taeniaides or (2) a neotype should be
proposed for one or all three names.

Original references

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion:

halotaeniai, Thalassema, Ikeda, 1901, Dobutsugaku Zasshi [The Zoological Magazine, Japan),
13(158): 392.

Ikeda Wharton, 1913, Philippine Journal of Science (D, Biology), 8(4): 266.

taeniaides, Thalassema, Ikeda, 1902, Dobutsugaku Zasshi [The Zoological Magazine, Japan),
14(159): plate.

taenioides, Thalassema, Ikeda, 1904, Journal of the College of Science, Imperial University of
Tokyo, 20(4): 63.

228 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003

OPINION 2049 (Case 3174)

Pardosa C.L. Koch, 1847 and Alopecosa Simon, 1885 (Arachnida,
Araneae): usage conserved by the designation of Lycosa alacris C.L.
Koch, 1833 as the type species of Pardosa

Abstract. The Commission has ruled that Lycosa alacris C.L. Koch, 1833, as
subsequently designated by Charitonov (1932), is fixed as the type species of the wolf
spider genus Pardosa C.L. Koch, 1847. The unidentifiable name Aranea chelata O.F.
Miller, 1764, at one time considered to be the oldest synonym of P. alacris and P.
lugubris, is suppressed.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Araneae; LyCosIDAE; Pardosa; Alopecosa; Par-
dosa alacris; Pardosa lugubris; Alopecosa striatipes; Aranea chelata; wolf spiders.

Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power:

(a) all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Pardosa C.L.
Koch, 1847 before that of Lycosa alacris C.L. Koch, 1833 by Charitonov
(1932) are hereby set ‘aside;

(b) the name chelata O.F. Miller, 1764, as published in the binomen Aranea
chelata, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority
but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy.

(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology:

(a) Pardosa C.L. Koch, 1847 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent
designation by Charitonov (1932) as ruled in (1)(a) above Lycosa alacris
C.L. Koch, 1833;

(b) Alopecosa Simon, 1885 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy
Aranea fabrilis Clerck, 1758. ~

The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names

in Zoology:

(a) alacris C.L. Koch, 1833, as published in the binomen Lycosa alacris
(specific name of the type species of Pardosa C.L. Koch, 1847);

(b) fabrilis Clerck, 1758, as published in the binomen Aranea fabrilis (specific
name of the type species of A/opecosa Simon, 1885).

The name chelata O.F. Miller, 1764, as published in the binomen Aranea

chelata and as suppressed in 1(b) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index

of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.

es)
—

(4

History of Case 3174

An application to conserve the current usage of the generic names Pardosa C.L.
Koch, 1847 and Alopecosa Simon, 1885 for two genera of European wolf spiders by
fixing Lycosa alacris C.L. Koch, 1833 as the type species of Pardosa was received
from Torbjérn Kronestedt (Department of Entomology, Swedish Museum of Natural

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003 229

History, Stockholm, Sweden), Charles D. Dondale (Eastern Cereal and Oilseed
Research Centre (ECORC), Research Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada,
Ottawa, Canada) and Alexey A. Zyuzin (Abylai Khan Avenue, Almaty, Kazakhstan
Republic) on 12 September 2000. After correspondence the case was published in
BZN 59: 7-11 (March 2002). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were
published on the Commission’s website. A comment in support of this case was
published in BZN 59: 203.

Decision of the Commission

On | March 2003 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposal published in BZN 59: 9-10. At the close of the voting period on | June 2003
the votes were as follows: 24 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, no
Commissioners voted AGAINST, no vote was received from Bohme.

Original references

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion:

alacris, Lycosa, C.L. Koch, 1833, Faunae insectorum Germaniae initia; oder Deutschlands
Insecten, Heft 120, pl. 17, fig. 18.

Alopecosa Simon, 1885, Exploration scientifique de la Tunisie, Zoologie, p. 10.

chelata, Aranea, O.F. Miller, 1764, Fauna Insectorum Fridrichsdalina, p. 94.

fabrilis, Aranea, Clerck, 1758, Sénska spindlar ... Aranei Svecici, descriptionibus et figuris . . .
illustrati, p. 86.

Pardosa C.L. Koch, 1847, Die Arachniden, vol. 14, p. 100.

The following is the reference for the designation of Lycosa alacris C.L. Koch, 1833 as the
type species of the nominal genus Pardosa C.L. Koch, 1847:

Charitonoy, D.E. 1932. Izvestiya Biologicheskogo Nauchno-issledovatelskogo Instituta i Biolog-
icheskoi Stantsii pri Permskom Gosudarstvennom Universitete, 8: 21.

230 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003

OPINION 2050 (Case 3189)

Ammotrecha Banks, 1900 and Ammotrechula Roewer, 1934
(Arachnida, Solifugae): usage conserved by the designation of Galeodes
limbata Lucas, 1835 as the type species of Ammotrecha; and
Eremobates Banks, 1900 and Eremorhax Roewer, 1934: usage
conserved by the designation of Galeodes pallipes Say, 1823 as the
type species of Eremobates

Abstract. The Commission has conserved the accustomed usage of (1) the generic
names Ammotrecha Banks, 1900 and-Ammotrechula Roewer, 1934 for two genera of
camel spiders or sun spiders from Central America and Mexico (Arachnida,
Solifugae) by designation of Galeodes limbata Lucas, 1835 as the type species of
Ammotrecha, and (2) the generic names Eremobates Banks, 1900 and Eremorhax
Roewer, 1934 for two genera of solifuges from the southern United States and
Mexico by the designation of Galeodes pallipes Say, 1823 as the type species of
Eremobates. :

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Arachnida; Solifugae; Solpugida; AMMOTRECHI-
DAE; EREMOBATIDAE; Ammotrecha; Ammotrechula; Eremobates; Eremorhax; Ammo-
trecha limbata; Ammotrechula sultatrix; Eremobates pallipes; Eremorhax formidabilis:
solifuges; solpugids; camel spiders; sun spiders; Central America; North America:
Mexico.

Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power all previous fixations of type species for the following
nominal genera are hereby set aside:

(a) Ammotrecha Banks, 1900 (= Cleobis Simon, 1879) before the designation
by Pocock (1902) of Galeodes limbata Lucas, 1835:

(b) Eremobates Banks, 1900 (= Datames Simon, 1879) before the designation
by Roewer (1934) of Galeodes pallipes Say, 1823.

The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names

in Zoology:

(a) Ammotrecha Banks, 1900 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent
designation by Pocock (1902) Galeodes limbata Lucas, 1835, as ruled in
(1)(a) above;

(b) Ammotrechula Roewer, 1934 (gender: feminine), type species by original
designation Cleobis saltatrix Simon, 1879;

(c) Eremobates Banks, 1900 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent
designation by Roewer (1934) Galeodes pallipes Say, 1823, as ruled in (1)(b)
above;

(d) Eremorhax Roewer, 1934 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy
Datames magna Hancock, 1888.

The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names

in Zoology:

(2

—

(3

—

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003 231

(a) limbata Lucas, 1835, as published in the binomen Galeodes limbata (specific
name of the type species of Ammotrecha Banks, 1900);

(b) saltatrix Simon, 1879, as published in the binomen Cleobis_ saltatrix
(specific name of the type species of Ammotrechula Roewer, 1934);

(c) pallipes Say, 1823, as published in the binomen Galeodes pallipes and as
defined by the neotype designated by Brookhart & Muma (1981) (specific
name of the type species of Eremobates Banks, 1900);

(d) magna Hancock, 1888, as published in the binomen Datames magna
(specific name of the type species of Eremorhax Roewer, 1934).

(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and

Invalid Generic Names in Zoology:

(a) Cleobis Simon, 1879 (Solifugae) (a junior homonym of Cleobis Dana,

1847):
(b) Datames Simon, 1879 (Solifugae) (a junior homonym of Datames Stal,
1875).

History of Case 3189

An application to conserve four genera of camel spiders or sun spiders (Arachnida,
Solifugae) from Central America, the southern United States and Mexico was
received from Mark S. Harvey (Department of Terrestrial Invertebrates, Western
Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia, Australia) on 28 January 2001. After
correspondence the case was published in BZN 58: 196-201 (September 2001). The
title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website.
No comments on this case were received.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 March 2003 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 58: 199-200. At the close of the voting period on | June
2003 the votes were as follows: 23 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, |
Commissioner (Minelli) voted AGAINST, no vote was received from Bohme.

Original references

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion:

Ammotrecha Banks, 1900, American Naturalist, 34: 426.

Ammotrechula Roewer, 1934, Klassen und Ordnungen des Tierreichs, Band 5 (Arthropoda),
Abt. 4 (Arachnoidea), p. 600.

Cleobis Simon, 1879, Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, (5)9: 145.

Datames Simon, 1879, Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, (5)9: 133.

Eremobates Banks, 1900, American Naturalist, 34: 426.

Eremorhax Roewer, 1934, Klassen und Ordnungen des Tierreichs, Band 5 (Arthropoda), Abt.
4 (Arachnoidea), p. 553.

limbata, Galeodes, Lucas, 1835, Magasin de Zoologie, 5: Classe VIII, plate 5, text.

magna, Datames, Hancock, 1888, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 25: 107.

pallipes, Galeodes, Say, 1823, Account of an expedition from Pittsburgh to the Rocky Mountains,
performed in the years 1819 and 20, by order of the Hon. J.C. Calhoun, Sec’y of War: under
the command of Major Stephen H. Long, vol. 2, p. 3, footnote.

saltatrix, Cleobis, Simon, 1879, Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, (5)9: 146.

232 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003

The following are the references for the designation of type species for:

Ammotrecha Banks, 1900—Galeodes limbata Lucas, 1835:
Pocock, R.I. 1902. Arachnida: Scorpiones, Pedipalpi, and Solifugae. Biologia Centrali-
Americana, 3: 64.

Eremobates Banks, 1900—Galeodes pallipes Say, 1823:
Roewer, C.F. 1934. Klassen und Ordnungen des Tierreichs, Band 5 (Arthropoda), Abt. 4
(Arachnoidea), p. 555.

The following is the reference for the designation of the neotype of Galeodes pallipes Say,
1833:

Brookhart, J.O. & Muma, M.H. 1981. Florida Entomologist, 64: 292.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003 233

OPINION 2051 (Case 3179)

Halacarus Gosse, 1855, H. ctenopus Gosse, 1855 and Thalassarachna
Packard, 1871 (Arachnida, Acari): usage of the names conserved by
the designation of a neotype for H. ctenopus

Abstract. The Commission has designated a neotype for the marine mite Halacarus
ctenopus Gosse, 1855 in the taxonomic sense of Lohmann (1893) in order to conserve
usage of the names Halacarus, H. ctenopus and Thalassarachna. The interpretation of
the genus Halacarus and of H. ctenopus has been based on Lohmann (1893). The
taxon described by Gosse is now placed in Thalassarachna Packard, 1871 under the
name JT. basteri (Johnston, 1836).

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Acari; HALACARIDAE; Halacarus; Thalass-
arachna; Halacarus ctenopus; Thalassarachna basteri; marine mites.

Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power all previous type fixations for Halacarus ctenopus

Gosse, 1855 are hereby set aside and the specimen labelled USNM No.

44-211—27 is designated as the neotype.

The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names

in Zoology:

(a) Halacarus Gosse, 1855 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent
designation by Viets (1927) Halacarus ctenopus;

(b) Thalassarachna Packard, 1871 (gender: feminine), type species by original
designation Thalassarachna verrillii Packard, 1871 (a junior subjective
synonym of Acarus basteri Johnston, 1836).

The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names

in Zoology:

(a) ctenopus Gosse, 1855, as published in the binomen Halacarus ctenopus and
as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above;

(b) basteri Johnston, 1836, as published in the binomen Acarus basteri (senior
subjective synonym of the specific name of Thalassarachna_verrillii
Packard, 1871, the type species of Thalassarachna Packard, 1871).

i)
SS

—
Les)
ma

History of Case 3179

An application to conserve the usage of the generic names Halacarus Gosse, 1855
and Thalassarachna Packard, 1871 and the specific name of Halacarus ctenopus
Gosse, 1855 (Arachnida, Acari) by the designation of a neotype for H. ctenopus
was received from Ilse Bartsch (Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg, clo DESY, Hamburg,
Germany) on 12 October 2000. After correspondence the case was published
in BZN 58: 202-205 (September 2001). The title, abstract and keywords of the
case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case
were received.

234 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003

Decision of the Commission

On 1 March 2003 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposal published in BZN 58: 203-204. At the close of the voting period on | June
2003 the votes were as follows: 22 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, 2
Commissioners (Stys and van Tol) voted AGAINST, no vote was received from
Bohme.

Voting against, Stys commented that ‘the author should preferably have applied
Article 70.3.2 to endorse Lohmann’s (1893) type fixation concomitantly with the
establishment of a new species (if necessary) for the misidentified H. ctenopus sensu
Lohmann (1893) non Gosse, 1855. This would have minimalized taxonomic and
nomenclatural changes’.

Original references

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:

basteri, Acarus, Johnston, 1836, Magazine of Natural History, 9(63): 353.

ctenopus, Halacarus, Gosse, 1855, Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (2)16: 28.
Halacarus Gosse, 1855, Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (2)16: 28.
Thalassarachna Packard, 1871, American Journal of Science, 3: 108.

The following is the reference for the designation of Halacarus ctenopus Gosse, 1855 as the
type species of Halacarus Gosse, 1855:

Viets, K. 1927. Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaftliche Zoologie, 130: 87.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003 235

OPINION 2052 (Case 3183)

Pagurus clypeatus Fabricius, 1787 (currently Coenobita clypeatus;
Crustacea, Decapoda): usage conserved by designation of a neotype

Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the accustomed usage of the name of the
common West Indian land hermit crab Coenobita clypeatus (Fabricius, 1787), the
type species of Coenobita Latreille, 1829, is conserved by the replacement of the two
existing East Indies syntypes of Pagurus clypeatus Fabricius, 1787 with a West Indies
neotype. The names C. rugosus and C. violascens are also conserved.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Crustacea; Decapoda; COENOBITIDAE; Coeno-
bita; Coenobita clypeatus; C. rugosus; C. violascens; hermit crabs; West Indies.

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary power all previous type fixations for the nominal species
Pagurus clypeatus Fabricius, 1767 are hereby set aside and the male specimen
USNM 126773 is designated as the neotype.

(2) An endorsement is hereby made to an existing entry (March 1990) on the
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology recording that Pagurus clypeatus
Fabricius, 1787 (specific name of the type species of Coenobita Latreille, 1829)
is defined by the neotype designated in (1) above.

(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology:

(a) rugosus Milne Edwards, 1837, as published in the binomen Cenobita
rugOSUS;
(b) violascens Heller, 1862, as published in the binomen Coenobita violascens.

History of Case 3183

An application to replace two existing syntypes of the common west Indian land
hermit crab Coenobita clypeatus (Fabricius, 1787) by a neotype was received from
Patsy A. McLaughlin (Shannon Point Marine Center, Western Washington Univer-
sity, Anacortes, WA, U.S.A.) and Lipke B. Holthuis (Nationaal Natuurhistorisch
Museum, Naturalis, Leiden, The Netherlands) on 5 November 2000. After correspon-
dence the case was published in BZN 59: 17-23 (March 2002). The title, abstract and
keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on
this case were received.

Decision of the Commission

On | March 2003 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 59: 20. At the close of the voting period on | June 2003
the votes were as follows: 24 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, no
Commissioners voted AGAINST, no vote was received from Bohme.

236 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003

Original references

The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:

rugosus, Cenobita, Milne Edwards, 1837, Histoire naturelle des crustacés, vol. 2, p. 241.
violascens, Coenobita, Heller, 1862, Verhandlungen der Zoologisch-Botanischen Gesellschaft in
Wien, 12: 524.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003 237

OPINION 2053 (Case 3207)

STAPHYLINIDAE Latreille, 1804 (Insecta, Coleoptera): 65 specific names
conserved

Abstract. The Commission has ruled that 65 specific names that have been in use for
many years for rove beetles (family sTAPHYLINIDAE), now placed in several different
genera but which were junior primary homonyms when published, are conserved.
None of the species denoted by the homonyms has been considered congeneric since
1899. Ninety nine specific names are placed on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; STAPHYLINIDAE; rove beetles.

Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that the specific names listed in
column 1 of Table 1, as originally published in binomina with the generic
names in column 2, are not invalid by reason of being junior primary
homonyms of the specific names indicated in column 3.
(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology:

The number in square brackets is the number of the name in Table | unless
otherwise stated.
aberrans, Philonthus, Cameron, 1932 [33]
aberrans, Philonthus, Sharp, 1876 [33]
affinis, Staphylinus, Paykull, 1789 [47]
affinis, Staphylinus, Solsky, 1868 [47]
analis, Philonthus, Erichson, 1840 [56]
angustatus, Staphylinus, Geoffroy, 1785 [20]
angustatus, Staphylinus, Solier, 1849 [20]
apicalis, Tachinus, Erichson, 1839 [58]
atricapillus, Oxytelus, Germar, 1825 [12]
atrum, Omalium, Casey, 1894 [7]
atrum, Omalium, Heer, 1839 [7]
auricomus, Staphylinus, Cameron, 1929 [48]
australis, Philonthus, Cameron, 1943 [34]
australis, Philonthus, MacLeay, 1873 [34]
axillaris, Tachinus, Erichson, 1839 [60]
axillaris, Tachinus, Gravenhorst, 1806 [60]
bicolor, Philonthus, Fauvel, 1903 [35]
bicolor, Staphylinus, Laporte, 1835 [57]
bicornis, Oxytelus, Germar, 1823 [13]
bicornis, Oxytelus, Olivier, 1811 [13]
biguttatus, Staphylinus, Bernhauer, 1937 [42]

238 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003

biguttatus, Staphylinus, Linnaeus, 1758 [42]
binotatus, Staphylinus, Gravenhorst, 1802 [36]
binotatus, Staphylinus, Gravenhorst, 1806 [36]
brevipenne, Omalium, Motschulsky, 1860 [1]
brunneus, Tachinus, Erichson, 1839 [61]
brunneus, Tachinus, Ullrich, 1975 [61]
cephalotes, Staphylinus, Gravenhorst, 1802 [Table 2, no. 3]
chrysis, Staphylinus, Bernhauer, 1936 [49]
chrysis, Staphylinus, Gravenhorst, 1806 [49]
cognatus, Philonthus, Sharp, 1876 [32]

cognatus, Philonthus, Stephens, 1832 [32]
concinnus, Staphylinus, Gravenhorst, 1802 [9]
concinnus, Staphylinus, Marsham, 1802 [9]
cornutus, Oxytelus, Bernhauer, 1936 [11]
cornutus, Oxytelus, Gravenhorst, 1802 [11]
crassicorne, Omalium, Lea, 1906 [4]

debilis, Leptacinus, Cameron, 1950 [30]

debilis, Leptacinus, Erichson, 1839 [30]
denticolle, Omalium, Beck, 1817 [8]

denticolle, Omalium, Sharp, 1889 [8]

dimidiatus, Staphylinus, Laporte, 1835 [50]
fulvipes, Tachinus, Erichson, 1840 [59]

gratus, Philonthus, Cameron, 1943 [28]

gratus, Philonthus, LeConte, 1863 [28]
haemorrhoidalis, Philonthus, Brancsik, 1893 [21]
haemorrhoidalis, Philonthus, MacLeay, 1873 [21]
haemorrhoidalis, Staphylinus, Fabrictus, 1801 [15, 55]
haemorrhoidalis, Staphylinus, Germar, 1824 [55]
hirtipennis, Quedius, Broun, 1915 [45]

humilis, Philonthus, Cameron, 1932 [37]

humilis, Philonthus, Erichson, 1840 [37]
hybridus, Philonthus, Cameron, 1930 [38]
hybridus, Philonthus, Erichson, 1840. [38]
litoreus, Staphylinus, Broun, 1880 [18]

littoreus, Staphylinus, Linnaeus, 1758 [18]
marginatum, Omalium, Cameron, 1941 [5]
marginatum, Omalium, Say, 1832 [5]
marginatus, Staphylinus, Cameron, 1944 [51]
marginatus, Staphylinus, Muller, 1764 [51]
melanocephalus, Oxyporus, Kirshenblat, 1938 [10]
melanocephalus, Staphylinus, Fabricius, 1787 [Table 2, no. 2]
mimulus, Philonthus, Sharp, 1874 [19]

minutus, Xantholinus, Coiftait, 1962 [53]
montanus, Philonthus, Bernhauer, 1934 [23]
nigriceps, Philonthus, Eppelsheim, 1885 [39]
nigrum, Omalium, Coiffait, 1982 [6]

nigrum, Omalium, Gravenhorst, 1806 [6]

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003 239

nitidulus, Staphylinus, Fabricius, 1781 [17]
nitidulus, Staphylinus, Gravenhorst, 1802 [17]
parvulus, Oxytelus, Mulsant & Rey, 1861 [14]
piceus, Tachinus, Cameron, 1932 [62]

piceus, Xantholinus, Cameron, 1926 [54]
picipennis, Philonthus, Heer, 1839 [24]
picipennis, Philonthus, Maklin, 1852 [24]
propinquus, Philonthus, Cameron, 1933 [25]
propinquus, Philonthus, Sharp, 1876 [25]
punctatellus, Philonthus, Heer, 1839 [26]
punctatellus, Philonthus, Horn, 1884 [26]
punctipennis, Staphylinus, Solier, 1849 [22]
purpurascens, Staphylinus, Cameron, 1920 [43]
purpurascens, Staphylinus, Nordmann, 1837 [43]
pygmaeus, Staphylinus, Paykull, 1800 [Table 2, no. 1]
rivularis, Philonthus, Cameron, 1932 [40]
rivularis, Philonthus, Kiesenwetter, 1858 [40]
robustum, Omalium, Broun, 1911 [2]

robustum, Omalium, Heer, 1839 [2]

rufipennis, Staphylinus, Cameron, 1930 [52]
rufipennis, Staphylinus, Fabricius, 1801 [29, 52]
rufipennis, Staphylinus, Gravenhorst, 1802 [29, 52]
rufum, Omalium, Sachse, 1852 [3]

terminalis, Staphylinus, Erichson, 1839 [16]
terminalis, Staphylinus, Laporte, 1840 [16]
testaceus, Staphylinus, Fabricius, 1801 [31]
thoracicus, Staphylinus, Gravenhorst, 1802 [41]
tomentosus, Staphylinus, Gravenhorst, 1802 [44]
unicolor, Quedius, Kiesenwetter, 1847 [46]
viduus, Philonthus, Cameron, 1933 [27]

viduus, Philonthus, Erichson, 1840 [27]

Details of the above names placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology
are given in Tables | and 2 as follows:

(a) the specific names in column 1 of Table 1, as originally published in
binomina with the generic names in column 2, ruled in (1) above to be not
invalid by reason of being junior primary homonyms of the names in
column 3;

(b) the valid specific names in column 3 of Table 1, as originally published in
binomina with the generic names in column 2;

(c) the specific names in column 1 of Table 2, as originally published in
binomina with generic names in column 2, usage maintained under Article
23.9.2 as nomina protecta.

History of Case 3207
An application to conserve the use of 65 specific names for rove beetles (family
STAPHYLINIDAE) was received from Dr Lee H. Herman (American Museum of Natural

240 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003

History, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) on 7 June 2001. After correspondence the case was
published in BZN 59: 99-113 (June 2002). The title, abstract and keywords of the
case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were
received, but a correction was published in BZN 59: 281 amplifying the proposals to
the Commission.

The specific names are now placed in several different genera but were junior
primary homonyms when published. None of the species denoted by the homonyms
has been considered congeneric since 1899. The conserved senior and junior
homonyms are presented in Table | below. Senior homonyms marked with an
asterisk * are invalid for the reasons cited in column 6 of Table 1 and Table 2 of the
application. The three specific names presented in column | of Table 2 below are
conserved as nomina protecta under Article 23.9.2.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 March 2003 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 59: 100. At the close of the voting period on | June 2003
the votes were as follows: 23 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, no
Commissioners voted AGAINST, Bouchet abstained, no votes were received from
Bohme.

Original references

The following are the original references to the names in Table 1 and Table 2 below, placed
on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion [the author’s name, date and page
on which the name is published are given in the Tables]:

Beck, L. von. 1817. Beitrdge zur baierischen Insektenfauna, oder Beschreibung und Abbildung
neuentdeckter Kdfer .. ., vol. 7. Pp. 8-45. Wolffische, Augsburg.

Bernhauer, M. 1934. Beitrag zur Staphylinidenfauna Afrika’s. Revue de Zoologie et de
Botanique Africaines, 24(3): 228-248.

Bernhauer, M. 1936a. Die Staphyliniden der Philippinen (Gattung Oxytelus). Philippine
Journal of Science, 61(1): 81-87.

Bernhauer, M. 1936b. Neue Staphyliniden vom belgischen Kongo. Revue de Zoologie et de
Botanique Africaines, 29(1): 21-28. ;

Bernhauer, M. 1937. Beitrag zur afrikanischen Staphylinidenfauna. Annals and Magazine of
Natural History, (10)20: 289-315.

Brancsik, K. 1893. Beitrage zur Kenntniss Nossibés und dessen Fauna nach Sendungen und
Mittheilungen des Herrn P. Frey . . . Jahresheft des Naturwissenschaftlichen Vereines des
Trencsiner Comitates, 15: 202-258.

Broun, T. 1880. Manual of the New Zealand Coleoptera, part 1. 651 pp. Hughes, Wellington.

Broun, T. 1911. Additions to the coleopterous fauna of the Chatham Islands. Transactions of
the New Zealand Institute, 43: 92-115.

Broun, T. 1915. Descriptions of new genera and species of Coleoptera. New Zealand Institute
Bulletin, 1(4): 267-346.

Cameron, M. 1920. New species of Staphylinidae from India. Entomologist’s Monthly
Magazine, 56: 141-148, 214-220.

Cameron, M. 1926. New species of Staphylinidae from India. Part Il. Transactions of the
Entomological Society of London, 1925: 341-372.

Cameron, M. 1929. New species of Staphylinidae from the Belgian Congo. Revue de Zoologie
et de Botanique Africaines, 18(1): 56—65.

Cameron, M. 1930a. Staphylinidae from British North Borneo, with descriptions of new
species. Journal of the Federated Malay States Museums, 16: 160-168.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003 241

Cameron, M. 1930b. New Staphylinidae from the Malay Peninsula. Journal of the Federated
Malay States Museums, 16: 154-159.

Cameron, M. 1932. The fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma. Coleoptera.
Staphylinidae, vol. 3. xiii, 443 pp. Taylor & Francis, London.

Cameron, M. 1933a. Fauna Sumatrensis. Staphylinidae. Tijdschrift voor Entomologie, 76:
383-395.

Cameron, M. 1933b. Staphylinidae (Col.) from Mount Kinabalu. Journal of the Federated
Malay States Museums, 17(2): 338-360.

Cameron, M. 1941. Descriptions of new Staphylinidae (Coleopt.). Proceedings of the Royal
Entomological Society of London, (B)10: 56-60, 142-147.

Cameron, M. 1943. New species of Staphylinidae (Col.) from Australia and New Guinea.
Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (11)10: 336-354.

Cameron, M. 1944. Descriptions of new Staphylinidae (Coleoptera). Proceedings of the Royal
Entomological Society of London, (B)13: 11-15, 49-52.

Cameron, M. 1950. Staphylinidae (Coleoptera Polyphaga). Explorations du Pare National
Albert. Mission G. F. de Witte, (1933-1935), 59: 1-85.

Casey, T.L. 1894. Coleopterological notices. V. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,
7: 281-606.

Coiffait, H. 1962. Nouveaux Yantholinus d’Afrique du Nord (Note préliminaire). Comptes
Rendus des Séances Mensuelles Société des Sciences Naturelles et Physiques du Maroc, 28:
73-74.

Coiffait, H. 1982. Contribution a la connaissance des Staphylinides de Himalaya (Nepal.
Ladakh, Cachemire). (Insecta: Coleoptera: Staphylinidae). Senckenbergiana Biologica, 62:
21-179.

Eppelsheim, E. 1885. Beitrag zur Staphylinidenfauna West-Afrika’s. Deutsche Entomologische
Zeitschrift, 29: 97-147.

Erichson, W.F. 1839. Genera et species Staphylinorum insectorum coleopterorum familiae, (part
1). Pp. 1400. Morin, Berolino.

Erichson, W.F. 1840. Genera et species Staphylinorum insectorum coleopterorum familiae, (part
2). Pp. 401-954. Morin, Berolino.

Fabricius, J.C. 1781. Species insectorum exhibentes eorum differentias specificas . . ., vol. 1. viii,
552 pp. Bohnii, Hamburg & Kilonii.

Fabricius, J.C. 1787. Mantissa insectorum sistens eorum species . . ., vol. 1. 348 pp. Christ.
Gottl. Proft, Hafniae.

Fabricius, J.C. 1801. Systema eleutheratorum secundum ordines . . ., vol. 2. 687 pp. Bibliopolii
Academici Novi, Kiliae.

Fauyel, A. 1903. Staphylinidae recueillis au Cameroun par le Dr. Yngve Sjéstedt. Arkiv for
Zoologi, 1: 235-244.

Germar, E.F. 1823. Fauna insectorum Europae, vol. 6. Pp. 1-25. Kuemmelii, Halae.

Germar, E.F. 1824. Insectorum species novae aut minus cognitae, descriptionibus illustratae.
Coleoptera. xxiv, 624 pp. Hendelii, Halae.

Germar, E.F. 1825. Fauna insectorum Europae, vol. 11. Pp. 1-25. Kuemmelii, Halae.

Grayenhorst, J.L.C. 1802. Coleoptera Microptera Brunsvicensia . . . \xvi, 206 pp. Reichard,
Brunsuigae.

Gravenhorst, J.L.C. 1806. Monographia Coleopterorum Micropterorum. 248 pp. Dieterich,
Gottingae.

Heer, O. 1839. Fauna Coleopterorum Helvetica, vol. 1, part 2. Pp. 145-360. Orelii, Fuesslini et
Sociorum, Turici.

Horn, G. 1884. Synopsis of the Philonthini of Boreal America. Transactions of the American
Entomological Society, 11: 177-244.

Kiesenwetter, E.A.H. von. 1847. [New species]. Jn von Kiesenwetter, H. & Markel, F., Eine
entomologische Excursion im Riesengebirge. Entomologische Zeitung herausgegeben von
dem Entomologischen Vereine zu Stettin, 8(3): 73-87.

Kiesenwetter, E.A.H. von. 1858. [New species]. Jn Kraatz, G., Beitrag zur Kaferfauna
Griechenlands. Zweites Stiick: Palpicornia, Silphales, Scydmaenidae, Pselaphidae, Sta-
phylinidae. Berliner Entomologische Zeitschrift, 2: 37-67.

242 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003

Kirshenblat, J. 1938. O nekotorykh dal’nevostochnykh zhukakh-stafilinakh. Trudy Gridobio-
logicheckoi Ekspeditsii zin Akademii Nauk 1934 g. na Iaponskoe More. Vypusk, 1:
527-536.

Laporte, F.L. 1835. Etudes entomologiques, ou description d'insectes nouveaux, et observations
sur leur synonymie. 159 pp., 4 pls. Méquignon-Marvis, Paris.

Laporte, F.L. 1840. Histoire naturelle des insectes coléoptéres, vol. 1. cxxy, 324 pp. Dumeril,
Paris.

Lea, A.M. 1906. Descriptions of new species of Australian Coleoptera. Part VIII. Proceedings
of the Linnean Society of New South Wales, 31: 195-228.

LeConte, J.L. 1863. New species of North American Coleoptera. Part I. Smithsonian
Miscellaneous Collections, 6(167): 1-92.

Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae.

MacLeay, W.J. 1873. Notes on a collection of insects from Gayndah. Transactions of the

Entomological Society of New South Wales, 2: 79-205.

Maklin, F.G. 1852. [New species and notes]. Jn von Mannerheim, C., Zweiter Nachtrag zur

Kaefer-Fauna der Nord-Amerikanischen Laender des Russischen Reiches. Bulletin de la

Société Impériale des Naturalistes de Moscou, 25(2): 283-387.

Marsham, T. 1802. Coleoptera Britannica, vol. 1. xxxi, 548 pp. White, Londini.

Motschulsky, V. 1860. Enumération des nouvelles especes de coléopteres rapportées de ses

voyages. 3e partie. Bulletin de la Société haapaedl des Naturalistes de Moscou, 33(2):

539-588.

Miiller, O.F. 1764. Fauna Insectorum Fridrichsdalina, sive methodica descriptio insectorum agri

Fridrichsdalensis . . . xxiv, 96 pp. Gleditschii, Hafniae & Lipsiae.

Mulsant, M.E. & Rey, C. 1861. Description de quelques coleopteres nouveaux ou peu connus.

Opuscules Entomologiques, 12: 139-188.

Nicolai, E.A. 1822. Dissertatio inatguralis medica sistens Coleopterorum species Agri Halensis

. 45 pp. Grunderti, Halae.

Nordmann, A. yon. 1837. Symbolae ad monographiam staphylinorum. 167 pp. Academiae
Caesareae Scientiarum, Petropoli.

Olivier, A.G. 1811. Encyclopédie Méthodique. Histoire naturelle. Insectes, vol. 8, part 2.
Pp. 361-722. Agasse, Paris.

Paykull, G. de. 1789. Monographia Staphylinorum Sueciae. 89 pp. Edman, Upsaliae.

Paykull, G. de. 1800. Fauna Suecica. Insecta, vol. 3. 459 pp. Edman, Upsaliae.

Sachse, C.T. 1852. Neue Kafer. Entomologische Zeitung herausgegeben von dem Entomolo-
gischen Vereine zu Stettin, 13: 115-127, 142-149, 454.

Say, T. 1832. [Untitled continuation of: Say, T. 1830. Descriptions of new species of North
American insects, and observations on some already described\, pp. 50-57. Say, Indiana.

Sharp, D.S. 1874. The Staphylinidae of Japan. Transactions of the Entomological Society of
London, 1874: 1-103.

Sharp, D.S. 1876. Contribution to an insect fauna of the Amazon Valley. Coleoptera,
Staphylinidae. Transactions of the Entomological Society of London, 1876: 27-424.

Sharp, D.S. 1889. The Staphylinidae of Japan. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (6)3:
28-44, 108-121, 249-267, 319-334, 406-419, 463-476.

Solier, A.J.J. 1849. Orden III. Coleopteros. In Gay, C. Historia fisica y politica de Chile.
Zoologia, 4: 105-380, 414-511.

Solsky, S.M. 1868. Etudes sur les Staphylinides de Méxique. Horae Societatis Entomologicae
Rossicae, 5: 119-144.

Stephens, J.F. 1832. Ilustrations of British entomology. .. Mandibulata, vol. 5. 240 pp. Baldwin
& Cradock, London.

Ullrich, W.G. 1975. Monographie der Gattung Tachinus Gravenhorst (Coleoptera: Staphylini-
dae). . . 365 pp. Christian-Albrechts-Universitat, Kiel.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003 243

Table 1. 62 conserved valid specific names (junior primary homonyms, column 1) and the names of their
senior primary homonyms (column 3), as originally published in binomina with the generic names in
column 2, placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology

KEY:

[] - Name in square brackets is the generic name currently in use

* - Names not currently used as the valid name for a species and therefore nor placed on the Official List
of Specific Names in Zoology

No - Reference number given in Table | of Application (BZN 59: 104-112)

Junior homonym

Original generic name

Senior homonyms)

No (column 1) (column 2) (column 3)
Subfamily OMALIINAE

1 brevipenne Motschulsky, 1860 = Omalium Gravenhorst, *brevipenne Gyllenhal, 1810
(p. 545) [Mannerheimia} 1802 (p. 234) [Micralymma]

2 robustum Broun, 1911 (p. 96) Omalium Gravenhorst, *robustum Heer, 1839 (p. 179)
[Omaliomimus] 1802 [Eusphalerum|

3 rufum Sachse, 1852 (p. 148) Omalium Gravenhorst, *rufum Gravenhorst, 1802
[Omaliopsis] 1802 (p. 115) [Acidota]

4 crassicorne Lea, 1906 (p. 212) | Omalium Gravenhorst, *crassicorne Matthews, 1863
[Omalium| 1802 (p. 8650) [Phyllodrepa]

5 marginatum Cameron, 1941 Omalium Gravenhorst, 1. marginatum Say, 1832
(p. 58) [Omalium] 1802 (p. 50) [Eusphalerum]

2. *marginatum Kirby, 1837
(p. 89) [Olophrum]

6 nigrum Coiffait, 1982 (p. 151) Omalium Gravenhorst, nigrum Gravenhorst, 1806
[Omalium| 1802 (p. 212) [Phyllodrepa]

7 atrum Casey, 1894 (p. 420) Omalium Gravenhorst, atrum Heer, 1839 (p. 178)
[Phyllodrepa| 1802 [Eusphalerum]

8 denticolle Sharp, 1889 (p. 475) | Omalium Gravenhorst, denticolle Beck, 1817 (p. 26)
[Pycnoglypta] 1802 [Megarthrus]

9 concinnus Marsham, 1802 Staphylinus Linnaeus, 1758 — concinnus Gravenhorst, 1802
(p. 510) [Xvlodromus] (p. 21) [Philonthus]
Subfamily oxyportNAE

10 melanocephalus Kirshenblat, Oxyporus Fabricius, 1775 *melanocephalus Fabricius,
1938 (p. 529) [Oxyporus] 1793 (p. 534) [Tachyporus]
Subfamily oxyYTELINAE

11 cornutus Bernhauer, 1936a Oxytelus Gravenhorst, cornutus Gravenhorst, 1802
(p. 86) [Anotylus] 1802 (p. 109) [Platystethus]

12 atricapillus Germar, 1825 Oxytelus Gravenhorst, *atricapillus Nicolai, 1822
(p. 4) [Bledius] 1802 (p. 40) [Oxytelus]

13 bicornis Germar, 1823 (p. 15) Oxytelus Gravenhorst, bicornis Olivier, 1811 (p. 615)
[Bledius] 1802 [Piestus]

14 parvulus Mulsant & Rey, 1861 Oxytelus Gravenhorst, *parvulus Melsheimer, 1844
(p. 175) [Carpelimus] 1802 (p. 41) [Anotylus]

Subfamily stapHyLININAE

15 haemorrhoidalis Fabricius, Staphylinus Linnaeus, 1758 — 1. *haemorrhoidalis Gmelin,

1801 (p. 596) [Belonuchus] 1790 (p. 2036) [Staphylinus]
2. haemorrhoidalis Olivier,
1795 (genus 42, p. 11)
[Staphylinus]

16 terminalis Laporte, 1840 Staphylinus Linnaeus, 1758 terminalis Erichson, 1839
(p. 176) [Belonuchus] (p. 396) [Oligotergus]

17 nitidulus Gravenhorst, 1802 Staphylinus Linnaeus, 1758 _ nitidulus Fabricius, 1781
(p. 27) [Bisnius] (p. 337) [Tachyporus}

18 litoreus Broun, 1880 (p. 108) Staphylinus Linnaeus, 1758 _ littoreus Linnaeus, 1758
[Cafius] (p. 422) [Sepedophilus]

19 mimulus Sharp, 1874 (p. 38) Philonthus Stephens, 1829 *mimulus Rottenberg, 1870

[Cafius]

(p. 30) [Gabronthus]

244 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003
Table 1. Continued
Junior homonym Original generic name Senior homonym(s)
No (column 1) (column 2) (column 3)
20 angustatus Solier, 1849 (p. 320) Staphylinus Linnaeus, 1758 — 1. *angustatus Schrank, 1781
[Cheilocolpus] (p. 233) [Staphylinus]
2. angustatus Geoffroy, 1785
(p. 172) [Rugilus]
3. *angustatus Paykull, 1789
(p. 36) [Astenus]
21 haemorrhoidalis Branesik, 1893 Philonthus Stephens, 1829 haemorrhoidalis MacLeay,
(p. 220) [Diatrechus] 1873 (p. 140) [Hesperus]
22 punctipennis Solier, 1849 Staphylinus Linnaeus, 1758 — *punctipennis Lacordaire, 1835
(p. 319) [Endeius] (p. 409) [Othius]
23 montanus Bernhauer, 1934 Philonthus Stephens, 1829 *montanus Heer, 1839 (p. 277)
(p. 237) [Gabrius] [Quedius]
24 picipennis Maklin, 1852 Philonthus Stephens, 1829 _picipennis Heer, 1839 (p. 279)
(p. 313) [Gabrius] [Quedius]
25 propinquus Cameron, 1933a Philonthus Stephens, 1829 propinquus Sharp, 1876
(p. 389) [Gabrius] (p. 176) [Paederomimus]
26 punctatellus Horn, 1884 Philonthus Stephens, 1829 punctatellus Heer, 1839
(p. 215) [Gabrius] : (p. 275) [Quedius]
27 viduus Cameron, 1933b Philonthus Stephens, 1829 viduus Erichson, 1840 (p. 506)
(p. 346) [Gabrius] [Styngetus]
28 gratus Cameron, 1943 (p. 342) —Philonthus Stephens, 1829 gratus LeConte, 1863 (p. 38)
[Hesperus] [Neobisnius]
29 rufipennis Gravenhorst, 1802 , Sraphylinus Linnaeus, 1758 __rufipennis Fabricius, 1801
(p. 40) [Hesperus] (p. 597) [Belonuchus]
30 debilis Cameron, 1950 (p. 28) Leptacinus Erichson, 1839 _ debilis Erichson, 1839 (p. 336)
[Leptacinus] [Somoleptus]
31 testaceus Fabricius, 1801 Staphylinus Linnaeus, 1758 — *testaceus Paykull, 1789
(p. 595) [Nordus] (p. 28) [Lobrathium]
32 cognatus Sharp, 1876 (p. 169) — Philonthus Stephens, 1829 cognatus Stephens, 1832
[Paederomimus] (p. 229) [Philonthus]
33 aberrans Cameron, 1932 Philonthus Stephens, 1829 — aberrans Sharp, 1876 (p. 174)
(p. 111) [Philonthus] [Paederomimus]
34 australis Cameron, 1943 Philonthus Stephens, 1829 australis MacLeay, 1873
(p. 342) [Philonthus] (p. 139) [Hesperus]
35 bicolor Fauvel, 1903 (p. 240) Philonthus Stephens, 1829 *bicolor Redtenbacher, 1849
[Philonthus] ¥ (p. 710) [Quedius]
36 binotatus Gravenhorst, 1806 Staphylinus Linnaeus, 1758 — binotatus Gravenhorst, 1802
(p. 73) [Philonthus] : (p. 28) [Heterothops}
37 humilis Cameron, 1932 Philonthus Stephens, 1829 humilis Erichson, 1840 (p. 512)
(p. 106) [Philonthus] [Neobisnius]
38 hybridus Cameron, 1930a Philonthus Stephens, 1829 hybridus Erichson, 1840
(p. 163) [Philonthus] (p. 432) [Quedius]
39 nigriceps Eppelsheim, 1885 Philonthus Stephens, 1829 *nigriceps Gemminger &
(p. 112) [Philonthus] Harold, 1868 (p. 590)
[Erichsonius]
40 rivularis Cameron, 1932 Philonthus Stephens, 1829 rivularis Kiesenwetter, 1858
(p. 138) [Philonthus] (p. 61) [Erichsonius]
41 thoracicus Gravenhorst, 1802 Staphylinus Linnaeus, 1758 1. *thoracicus Geoffroy, 1785
(p. 170) [Philonthus] (p. 170) [Paederidus]
2. *thoracicus Villers, 1789
(p. 420) [Staphylinus}
42 biguttatus Bernhauer, 1937 Staphylinus Linnaeus, 1758 — biguttatus Linnaeus, 1758
(p. 304) [Platydracus] (p. 422) [Srenus
43 purpurascens Cameron, 1920 Staphylinus Linnaeus, 1758 — purpurascens Nordmann, 1837

(p. 217) [Platydracus]

(p. 47) [Staphylinus]

51

n
i)

53

54

3»)

57

58

59

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003

Junior homonym
(column 1)

tomentosus Gravenhorst, 1802
(p. 161) [Platydracus]
hirtipennis Broun, 1915

(p. 279) [Quedius]

unicolor Kiesenwetter, 1847
(p. 75) [Quedius]

affinis Solsky, 1868 (p. 126)
[Staphylinus]

auricomus Cameron, 1929
(p. 65) [Staphylinus]

chrysis Bernhauer, 1936b
(p. 24) [Staphylinus]
dimidiatus Laporte, 1835
(p. 115) [Staphylinus]

marginatus Cameron, 1944
(p. 11) [Staphylinus]

rufipennis Cameron, 1930b
(p. 156) [Staphylinus]

minutus Coiffait, 1962 (p. 73)

[Xantholinus]

piceus Cameron, 1926 (p. 345)
[Xantholinus]

haemorrhoidalis Germar, 1824
(p. 34) [Xanthopygus]

analis Erichson, 1840 (p. 495)
[Xenopygus]
bicolor Laporte, 1835 (p. 115)
[Xenopygus]

Subfamily TACHYPORINAE
apicalis Erichson, 1839
(p. 250) [Coproporus]

fulvipes Erichson, 1840.

(p. 921) [Tachinomorphus]

Table 1. Continued

Original generic name
(column 2)

Staphylinus Linnaeus, 1758
Quedius Stephens, 1829
Quedius Stephens, 1829
Staphylinus Linnaeus, 1758
Staphylinus Linnaeus, 1758
1758

Staphylinus Linnaeus,

Staphylinus Linnaeus, 1758

Staphylinus Linnaeus, 1758

Staphylinus Linnaeus, 1758

Xantholinus Dejean, 1821
Xantholinus Dejean, 1821

Staphylinus Linnaeus, 1758

Philonthus Stephens, 1829

Staphylinus Linnaeus, 1758

Tachinus Gravenhorst,
1802
Tachinus Gravenhorst,
1802

Senior homonyms)
(column 3)

*tomentosus Rossi, 1792

(p. 97) [Sepedophilus]
*hirtipennis Stephens, 1832
(p. 221) [Philonthus]

*unicolor Stephens, 1832

(p. 224) [Philonthus]

affinis Paykull, 1789 (p. 24)
[Atrecus]

*auricomus Brullé, 1842 (pl. 5,
fig. 6) [Glenus]

chrysis Gravenhorst, 1806

(p. 214) [Glenus]

1. *dimidiatus Sahlberg, 1830
(p. 326) [Philonthus]

2. *dimidiatus Say, 1830

(p. 37) [Philonthus]

3. *dimidiatus Lacordaire,
1835 (p. 402) [Philonthus]

1. marginatus Miller, 1764
(p. 23) [Philonthus]

2. *marginatus Strom, 1768
(p. 332) [Philonthus]

3. *marginatus Fabricius, 1775
(p. 226) [Philonthus]

4. *marginatus Geoffroy, 1785
(p. 169) [Tachinus] 176)
[Paederomimus]

1. rufipennis Fabricius, 1801
(p. 597) [Belonuchus]

2. rufipennis Gravenhorst, 1802
(p. 40) [Hesperus]

3. *rufipennis Solier, 1849
(p. 317) [Philonthus]
*minutus Lacordaire, 1835
(p. 417) [Leptacinus]

*piceus MacLeay, 1873

(p. 138) [Zeteotomus]

1. *haemorrhoidalis Olivier,
1795 (genus 42, p. 11)
[Staphylinus]

2. haemorrhoidalis Fabricius,
1801 (p. 596) [Belonuchus]
3. *haemorrhoidalis Gmelin,
1790 (p. 2036) [Staphylinus
*analis Heer, 1839 (p. 268)
[Gabrius]

1. *bicolor Paykull, 1789

(p. 21) [Lesteva]

2. *bicolor Gmelin, 1790

(p. 2027) [Staphylinus]

*apicalis Stephens, 1832
(p. 195) [Tachinus]
*fulvipes Stephens, 1832
(p. 195) [Tachinus]

245

246 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003

Table 1. Continued

Junior homonym Original generic name Senior homonym(s)
No (column 1) (column 2) (column 3)
60 axillaris Erichson, 1839 Tachinus Gravenhorst, axillaris Gravenhorst, 1806
(p. 261) [Tachinus] 1802 (p. 29) [Lordithon|
61 brunneus Ullrich, 1975 (p. 207) Tachinus Gravenhorst, brunneus Erichson, 1839
[Tachinus] 1802 (p. 249) [Coproporus}
62 piceus Cameron, 1932 (p. 389) | Tachinus Gravenhorst, 1. *piceus Erichson, 1839
[Tachinus] 1802 (p. 246) [Coproporus]

2. *piceus Stephens, 1829
(p. 268) [Bryoporus]

Table 2. Junior homonyms in column 1, as originally published in binomina with the generic names in
column 2, conserved under Article 23.9.2 of the Code and placed on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology

[] - Name in square brackets is the generic name currently in use

* _ Names not currently used as the valid name for a species and therefore not placed on the Official List
of Specific Names in Zoology

No - Reference number given in Table 2 of Application (BZN 59: 113)

Junior homonym Original generic name Senior homonym
No (column 1) (column 2) (column 3)

Subfamily OMALIINAE

1 pygmaeus Paykull, 1800 Staphylinus Linnaeus, 1758 *pygmaeus Villers 1789
(p. 410) [Hapalaraea) nomen (p. 420) [Staphylinus] nomen
protectum oblitum

2 melanocephalus Fabricius, 1787 Staphylinus Linnaeus, 1758 *melanocephalus Geofiroy,
(p. 222) [Phyllodrepa] nomen 1785 (p. 172) [Staphylinus]
protectum nomen oblitum
Subfamily sTAPHYLININAE

3 cephalotes Gravenhorst, 1802 Staphylinus Linnaeus, 1758 *cephalotes Gmelin, 1790
(p. 22) [Bisnius] nomen (p. 2036) [Staphylinus] nomen

protectum y oblitum

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003 247

OPINION 2054 (Case 3201)

Scarabaeus punctatus Villers, 1789 (currently Pentodon bidens
punctatus; Insecta, Coleoptera): specific name conserved

Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the specific name of Scarabaeus punctatus
Villers, 1789 (family SCARABAEIDAE, subfamily DYNASTINAE), which is a junior
primary homonym of S. punctatus Linnaeus, 1758 (family sCARABAEIDAE, subfamily
RUTELINAE), 1S conserved. Despite the homonymy both specific names have been used
since publication and are currently in use; they have never been treated as congeneric
and neither has been included in the original genus since 1798. The name Pentodon
bidens punctatus (Villers) refers to and is currently used for a common Palaearctic
rhinoceros beetle; S. punctatus Linnaeus, 1758, currently Pelidnota punctata
(Linnaeus), refers to and is used for a common eastern North American chafer.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; SCARABAEIDAE; DYNASTINAE;
RUTELINAE; Pentodon bidens punctatus; Pelidnota punctata; rhinoceros beetles; chafers;
Mediterranean; eastern North America.

Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power the specific name punctatus Villers, 1789, as
published in the binomen Scarabaeus punctatus, is hereby ruled to be not
invalid by reason of being a junior primary homonym of Scarabaeus punctatus
Linnaeus, 1758.
The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology:
(a) Pelidnota MacLeay, 1819 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy
Scarabaeus punctatus Linnaeus, 1758 (RUTELINAE);
(b) Pentodon Hope, 1837 (gender: masculine), type species by original
designation Scarabaeus punctatus Villers, 1789 (DYNASTINAE).
(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology:
(a) punctatus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Scarabaeus puncta-
tus (specific name of the type species of Pelidnota MacLeay, 1819)
(RUTELINAE);
(b) punctatus Villers, 1789, as published in the binomen Scarabaeus punctatus
(specific name of the type species of Pentodon Hope, 1837) (not invalid by
the ruling in (1) above) (DYNASTINAE).

—~
NM
—

History of Case 3201

An application to conserve the specific name of Scarabaeus punctatus Villers, 1789
(SCARABAEIDAE, DYNASTINAE) Was received from Frank-Thorsten Krell (Department of
Entomology, The Natural History Museum, London, U.K.) on 15 March 2001. After
correspondence the case was published in BZN 59: 27-29 (March 2002). The title,
abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website.
A comment in support of the application was published in BZN 59: 203.

248 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003

Despite the specific name being a junior primary homonym of S. punctatus
Linnaeus, 1758 both specific names have been used since publication and are
currently in use. They have never been treated as congeneric and neither has been
included in the original genus since 1798. The name Pentodon bidens punctatus
(Villers) refers to the west and central Mediterranean subspecies of a common
Palaearctic rhinoceros beetle (DYNASTINAE); Pelidnota punctata (Linnaeus) refers to a
common chafer occurring in the eastern part of the U.S.A. and southern Ontario
(RUTELINAE).

Decision of the Commission

On 1 March 2003 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 59: 28. At the close of the voting period on | June 2003
the votes were as follows: 24 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, no
Commissioners voted AGAINST, no votes were received from Bohme.

Original references

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling

given in the present Opinion:

Pelidnota MacLeay, 1819, Horae entomologicae: or essays on the annulose animals, vol. 1, part
1, p. 158.

Pentodon Hope, 1837, The Coleopterist’s manual, containing the Lamellicorn insects of Linneus
and Fabricius, p. 92. ‘

punctatus, Scarabaeus, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 350.

punctatus, Scarabaeus, Villers, 1789, Caroli Linnaei entomologia, fauna Suecicae . . ., vol. 1,
p. 40, pl. 1, fig. 3.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003 249

OPINION 2055 (Case 3176)

Ptinus tectus Boieldieu, 1856 (Insecta, Coleoptera): usage of the
specific name conserved

Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the specific name Ptinus tectus Boieldieu,
1856 for a well-known spider beetle (family ANoBIIDAE, subfamily PTININAE) of
significant economic importance is to be treated as the specific name of a then new
nominal species. Boieldieu proposed the name P. tectus as a replacement name for the
junior primary homonym Ptinus pilosus White, 1846 (a dorcatomine anobiid from
New Zealand) with which he had misidentified his new taxon.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; ANOBIIDAE; PTININAE;
DORCATOMINAE; Ptinus tectus; spider beetles.

Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that tectus Boieldieu, 1856, as
published in the binomen Ptinus tectus, is to be treated as the specific name of
a then new nominal species.
(2) The name fectus Boieldieu, 1856, as published in the binomen Ptinus tectus and
as ruled in (1) above to be treated as the name of a then new nominal species,
is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 3176

An application for the conservation of the specific name of Ptinus tectus Boieldieu,
1856 for an economically important spider beetle (ANOBIIDAE, PTININAE) was received
from S.E. Thorpe (Department of Entomology, Auckland Museum, Auckland, New
Zealand) on 22 September 2000. After correspondence the case was published in BZN
59: 24-26. The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the
Commission’s website. No comments on this case were received.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 March 2003 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 59: 25. At the close of the voting period on | June 2003
the votes were as follows: 24 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, no
Commissioners voted AGAINST, no vote was received from Bohme.

Original reference

The following is the original reference to the name placed on an Official List by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:
tectus, Ptinus, Boieldieu, 1856, Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, (3)4: 652.

250 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003

OPINION 2056 (Case 3186)

Squalus edwardsii (currently Haploblepharus edwardsii;
Chondrichthyes, Carcharhiniformes): attributed to Schinz, 1822 and
edwardsii conserved as the correct original spelling of the specific name

Abstract. The specific name of the puffadder shyshark Haploblepharus edwardsii 1s
attributed to Schinz (1822) and edwardsii is conserved as the correct original spelling
in place of edwartsii.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Chondrichthyes; scyLIORHINIDAE; Haploblepha-
rus; Haploblepharus edwardsii; puffadder shyshark.

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that the name edwartsii, as
published in the binomen Squalus edwartsii, is an incorrect original spelling of
edwardsii. :

(2) The name edwardsii Schinz, 1822, as published in the binomen Squalus
edwartsii [sic], is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology.

(3) The name edwartsii Schinz, 1822, as published in the binomen Squalus
edwartsii and ruled in (1) above to be an incorrect original spelling of edwardsii,
is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names
in Zoology.

History of Case 3186

An application to attribute the specific name of the puffadder shyshark
Haploblepharus edwardsii to Schinz (1822) as the author and to conserve edwardsii as
the correct original spelling was received from M.J.P. van Oyen (Nationaal
Natuurhistorisch Museum, Naturalis, Leiden, The Netherlands) on 21 December 2000.
After correspondence the case was published in BZN 58: 294-296 (December 2001).
The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s
website. No comments on this case were received.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 March 2003 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 58: 295. At the close of the voting period on | June 2003
the votes were as follows: 23 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, no
Commissioners voted AGAINST, Stys abstained, no vote was received from B6hme.

Original references

The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an
Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
edwardsii, Squalus, Schinz, 1822, Das Thierreich eingeteilt nach dem Bau der Thiere als
Grundlage ihrer Naturgeschichte und die vergleichende Anatomie, vol. 2, p. 214.
edwartsii, Squalus, Schinz, 1822,:Das Thierreich eingeteilt nach dem Bau der Thiere als
Grundlage ihrer Naturgeschichte und die vergleichende Anatomie, vol. 2, p. 214.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003 251

OPINION 2057 (Case 3028)

Aphanius Nardo, 1827 (Osteichthyes, Cyprinodontiformes): conserved

Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the name Aphanius Nardo, 1827 for a genus
of Palaearctic fishes (family CyPRINODONTIDAE) is conserved by the suppression of the
name Lebias Goldfuss, 1820 which, with a single exception in 1895, had remained
unused since 1846 until resurrected by Lazara in 1995. Few authors have followed
Lazara in his use of Lebias which does not refer to the same taxon as Aphanius.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; CYPRINODONTIDAE; Aphanius; Cyprinodon;
Lebias; Aphanius fasciatus; Cyprinodon variegatus; tooth carps; freshwater; brackish
water; Palaearctic.

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary power the name Lebias Goldfuss, 1820 is hereby suppressed
for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle
of Homonymy.
The name Aphanius Nardo, 1827 (gender: masculine), type species by
subsequent designation by Jordan (1917) Aphanius nanus Nardo, 1827
(a junior subjective synonym of Lebias fasciata Valenciennes in Humboldt &
Valenciennes, 1821), is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology.
The name fasciata Valenciennes in Humboldt & Valenciennes, 1821, as
published in the binomen Lebias fasciata (senior subjective synonym of the
specific name of Aphanius nanus Nardo, 1827, the type species of Aphanius
Nardo, 1827), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology.
The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology:
(a) Lebias Goldfuss, 1820 (suppressed in (1) above);
(b) Lebia Oken, 1817 (a junior homonym of Lebia Latreille, 1802).

=~
i)
—

—
ies)
—

=
=

History of Case 3028

An application to conserve the name Aphanius Nardo, 1827 for a genus of
Palaearctic fishes (family CyPRINODONTIDAE) by the suppression of the name Lebias
Goldfuss, 1820 was received from Maurice Kottelat (Route de la Baroche 12, Cornol,
Switzerland) and Alwyne Wheeler (Department of Zoology, The Natural History
Museum, London, U.K.) on 20 September 1996. After correspondence the case was
published in BZN 58: 110-115 (June 2001). The title, abstract and keywords of the
case were published on the Commission’s website. Nine comments in support of this
case were published in BZN 59: 133-134.

Decision of the Commission
On.1 March 2003 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on
the proposals published in BZN 58: 113. At the close of the voting period on | June

252 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003

2003 the votes were as follows: 23 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals,
1 Commissioner (Kerzhner) voted AGAINST, no vote was received from Bohme.

Original references

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling

given in the present Opinion:

Aphanius Nardo, 1827, Giornale di Fisica, Chimica, Storia naturale, Medicina ed Arti (Pavia),
Decade Seconde, 10: 34, 39-40.

fasciata, Lebias, Valenciennes in Humboldt & Valenciennes, 1821. Voyage aux régions
équinoxiales du nouveau continent, fait en 1799, 1800, 1801, 1802, 1803 et 1804, vol. 2, part
11, p. 160.

Lebia Oken, 1817, Isis, 1: 1183.

Lebias Goldfuss, 1820, Handbuch der Zoologie, vol. 2, p. 16.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003 253

OPINION 2058 (Case 2661)

MACROPODINAE Hoedeman, 1948 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes): spelling
emended to MACROPODUSINAE So removing the homonymy with
MACROPODINAE Gray, 1821 (Mammalia, Marsupialia)

Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the homonymy between MACROPODINAE
(Osteichthyes, Perciformes, ANABANTIDAE) and MACROPODIDAE Gray, 1821
(Mammalia, Marsupialia) is removed by emending the fish name to MACROPODUSINAE
by using the whole name of the type genus Macropodus Lacepéde, 1801 as the
grammatical stem in accordance with Recommendation 29A of the Code. The
mammalian name (based on Macropus Shaw & Nodder, 1790) remains unchanged.
The names of Macropus and of its type species, M. giganteus Shaw & Nodder, 1790,
were placed on Official Lists in Opinion 760 (January 1966).

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Mammalia; Marsupialia; Osteichthyes;
Perciformes; ANABANTIDAE; MACROPODIDAE; MACROPODUSINAE; Macropus; Macro-
podus; kangaroos; wallabies; anabantoid fishes; labyrinth fishes; Australia; Tasmania;
New Guinea; Southeast Asia.

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that for the purposes of
Article 29 of the Code the stem of the generic name Macropodus Lacepéde,
1801 (Osteichthyes) is MACROPODUs-.

(2) The name Macropodus Lacepéde, 1801 (gender: masculine), type species by
monotypy Macropodus viridiauratus Lacepéde, 1801, is hereby placed on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology (Osteichthyes).

(3) The name viridiauratus Lacepéde, 1801, as published in the binomen Macro-
podus viridiauratus (specific name of the type species of Macropodus Lacepéde,
1801), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology
(Osteichthyes).

(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group
Names in Zoology:

(a) MACROPODIDAE Gray, 1821, type genus Macropus Shaw & Nodder, 1790
(Marsupialia);

(b) MACROPODUSINAE Hoedeman, 1948, type genus Macropodus Lacepéde, 1801
(spelling emended by the ruling in (1) above) (Osteichthyes).

(5) The name MAcRopoDINAE Hoedeman, 1948 (spelling emended to MACROPODUSI-
NAE by the ruling in (1) above) is hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology (Osteichthyes).

History of Case 2661

An application to remove the homonymy between the family-group names
MACROPODINAE Hoedeman, 1948 (Osteichthyes) and MACROPODIDAE Gray, 1821
(Mammalia) was received from Maurice Kottelat (Department of Biological Sciences,

254 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003

National University of Singapore, Kent Ridge, Singapore; and Route de la Baroche 12,
Cornol, Switzerland) on 28 April 1988. After correspondence the case was published
in BZN 58: 297-299 (December 2001). The title, abstract and keywords of the case
were published on the Commission’s website.

A comment correcting the author and date of the family-group name MACROPODI-
NAE from Liem (1963) as published in the original application to Hoedeman (1948)
was published in BZN 59: 132-133.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 March 2003 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposal published in BZN 58: 298. At the close of the voting period on | June 2003
the votes were as follows: 24 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, no
Commissioners voted AGAINST, no vote was received from Bohme.

Original references

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an
Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion:

MACROPODIDAE Gray, 1821, London Medical Repository, 15: 308.

MACROPODINAE Hoedeman, 1948, Encyclopaedie voor den aquariumhouder, p. 2.
Macropodus Lacepéde, 1801, Histoire naturelle des poissons, vol. 3, p. 416.
MACROPODUSINAE Hoedeman, 1948, ‘Encyclopaedie voor den aquariumhouder, p. 2.
viridiauratus, Macropodus, Lacepéde, 1801, Histoire naturelle des poissons, vol. 3, p. 416.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003 255

OPINION 2059 (Case 275)

Camelus Linnaeus, 1758 (Mammalia, Artiodactyla): Camelus
bactrianus Linnaeus, 1758 designated as the type species

Abstract. The Commission has designated Camelus bactrianus Linnaeus, 1758 as the
type species of the camel genus Came/us Linnaeus, 1758, to accord with modern
usage. A 1904 designation of C. dromedarius Linnaeus, 1758 had never been adopted.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Artiodactyla; CAMELIDAE; Camelus; Camelus
bactrianus; Bactrian camel.

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary power all previous designations of type species for Camelus
Linnaeus, 1758 are hereby set aside and Camelus bactrianus Linnaeus, 1758 is
designated as the type species.

(2) The name Came/us Linnaeus, 1758 (gender: masculine), type species by
designation in (1) above Camelus bactrianus Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby placed
on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name bactrianus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Camelus
bactrianus (specific name of the type species of Camelus Linnaeus, 1758), is
hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 275

There has long been confusion as to whether Camelus bactrianus Linnaeus, 1758 or
C. dromedarius Linnaeus, 1758 was the valid type species of Camelus Linnaeus, 1758.
In order to resolve this situation, N. Erridge (then of the Secretariat, International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) reviewed the history of the name and
prepared an application proposing that the Commission should rule that C.
bactrianus is the type species and not C. dromedarius as had been designated by
Palmer (1904), not Hay (1902) as stated in the application. This application was
published in BZN 45: 141-142 (June 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate
journals. No comments on this case were received.

Decision of the Commission

On | March 2003 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 45: 141. At the close of the voting period on | June 2003
the votes were as follows: 22 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, one
Commissioner (Minelli) voted AGAINST, Alonso-Zarazaga abstained, no vote was
received from Bohme.

Original references

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:

256 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003
bactrianus, Camelus, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 65.
Camelus Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 65.

Additional reference

Palmer, T.S. 1904. North American fauna, 23: 156.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003 257

Book Review

Hooper, J.N.A. and van Soest, R.W.M. 2002. Systema Porifera. A guide to
the classification of Sponges. 2 vols. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers,
New York, Boston, Dordrecht, London, Moscow. ISBN 0—306—47260-0.

D.J. Patterson
School of Biological Sciences, University of Sydney, N.S.W. 2006, Australia

On occasions, a book appears which simply takes one’s breath away (the last one
that did it for me was Starr’s Prokaryotes). Systema Porifera is one such work. It is
an achievement that comes with an inherent sense of grandeur and destiny. It is a
systematic treatment of the sponges and seeks to provide an even-handed and
definitive coverage of the estimated 680 living genera and also point to about 1000
fossil forms (my tally is that the book covers 1800 genera or subgenera). It is
multi-authored and extends for 2000 pages. This work has been assembled by the
efforts of over 45 authors from 17 countries. Although the diversity of contributors
could be a recipe for disaster, the editors have done an exceedingly good job in
securing a consistency of approach.

The sponges are a taxonomically intimidating group—partly because of the
difficulty of working on them, and because there are 15,000 living taxa. Not that
every species is included, but all genera are included—most with reference to
the type species. A volume such as this, which does its task so well, will bring
taxonomic and nomenclatural stability to the discipline and provide a solid platform
for future work. This compilation will be of great value to those studying
the evolutionary and ecological significance of sponges (they greatly influenced
the shape of the Earth through the formation of reefs, or offer the tantalizing
ancestry to the epitheliate animals), or others who find their rich biochemical
competency offers bio-prospecting opportunities—especially to the pharmaceutical
industry.

The first volume deals with the general introduction and the Demospongiae. The
second volume deals with Calcarea and Hexactinellidae—as well as those various
fossil taxa that have sat in a slightly uncertain position relative to the sponges and
other lower animals—such as the Sphinctozoa and Archaeocyatha. There is a chapter
cataloguing the names of taxa that are even more obscure.

The work has a clear priority for the living (as opposed to extinct) sponges,
but there is considerable cross reference to the fossil taxa—although this is kept
under some greater control because of an upcoming volume on the fossil sponges
within the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. Within each taxon there is a
statement as to its scope (what are the contained taxa), the synonymies, type species,
separate definitions and diagnoses, and coverage of various aspects of biology such
as distribution and geological age. Virtually all the extant genera are
illustrated—often with pictures of type material (there is reference to material that
was examined).

There used to be a tendency for taxonomists to be referred to in derogatory terms
as ‘stamp collectors’—a mantle since taken over by polypeptide or nucleic acid

258 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003

sequencers. Yet, embedded within achievements like Systema Porifera is the
framework that we can call upon to hang all associated information. This is especially
timely as we now move into a new era of biodiversity bioinformatics—where Internet
services will use compilations of names to index and integrate information that is
accessible through the Internet; and even though the usual emphasis is on ‘species’,
coverage that emphasizes the genus 1s commendable. This approach makes the task
of working with a group as large as the sponges tractable. The availability of the
names of genera provides the indexing structure that allows access to all species level
information.

One minor gripe with Systema Porifera lies in the sections on synonymy. Possibly
a consequence of the multi-author approach is that the concept of synonym is dealt
with in different ways. So, we might get:

Erylus Gray 1876, with synonymies listed as Erylus Gray 1867a: 549: Stelletta
(in Part) 1862: 46; Scutastra Ferrer-Hernandez, 1912: 582.

Or in the case of Aulospongus Norman:

Aulospongus Norman, 1878: 267; Dendy, 1889: 89; Dendy, 1922b: 61; Burton,
1937: 38; Hooper, 1991: 1307; Hooper & Lévi, 1993: 1294; Hooper et al., 1999: 651
(Not Aulospongus; de Laubenfels, 1936a: 100). Aulospongiella Burton, 1956: 141;
Heterectya Hallmann, 1917b: 393. Raphidectyon Topsent, 1927b: 15, Hemecytonilla
Burton, 1959a: 254. Trachostylea Topsent, 1928c: 166. Taxonomy decision for
synonymy: Hooper (1991), Hooper et al. (1999), this work.

However, these examples reveal the stunning level of intellectual industry that
underpins this book and from which it will gain its authority and its place in history.
It is also evident that some of the contributors have included under “synonymy”
reference to papers where particular synonyms have been used. This creates
uncertainty throughout the volumes as to whether we are really dealing with
synonyms and authorities, or if reference is being made to publications—as is
suggested by the occasional use of a letter after the date of publication.

Anything missing? Although I can understand why, I would really like to have had
a section on the general biology of the sponges, a description of all the component
parts, their variability and even a stab or two at building phylogenetic trees. Without
this, statements along the lines of ‘dermalia are usually hexactines sometimes with
rare pentactines while atrialia are scarce pentactines’ remain impenetrable. There are
suggestions that the content will move to an electronic format and as classification
tools of the ilk of ‘Platypus’ become more readily available, perhaps we will
increasingly see a diversity of views about phylogeny become visible through the
Internet.

So who should we applaud? Well, first there are the authors—Belinda Alvarez,
Pat Bergquist, Radovan Borojevic, Nicole Boury-Esnault, Alex Cook, Steve Cook,
Francoise Debrenne, R. Desqueyroux-Faundez, Maria Diaz, Dirk Erpenbeck,
Diego Garcia-Bellido, Eduardo Hajdu, John Hooper, Michelle Kelly, Manfred
Krautter, Cléa Lerner, Claude Lévi, Manuel Maldonado, Renata Manconi,
Michael Manuel, Larisa Menshenina, Guilherme Muricy, Thierry Perez, John
Pickett, Andrzej Pisera, Roberto Pronzato, Henry Reiswig, Joachim Reitner,
Klaus Riitzler, Toufiek Samaai, Michele Sara, Baba Senowbari-Daryan,
Konstantin Tachnik, Maria Uriz, Jean Vacelet, R.C. Valentine, Rob van Soest,
Wallie de Weerdt, Philippe Willenz, Benjamin Wheeler, and Gert Wo6rheide. The

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003 259

load carried by individuals varies considerably, but of this group, bibliographic
editor Philippe Willenz deserves special mention because of the extent and detail of
the bibliographic coverage.

Then the two lead players John Hooper and Bob van Soest who must, I am sure,
have many times wondered if they were doing the right thing (you were!) and of
course the publishers (Kluwer/Plenum) also need to be applauded.

260 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(3) September 2003

INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS

The following notes are primarily for those preparing applications to the Commis-
sion; other authors should comply with the relevant sections. Applications should be
prepared in the format of recent parts of the Bulletin; manuscripts not prepared in
accordance with these guidelines may be returned.

General. Applications are requests to the Commission to set aside or modify the
Code’s provisions as they relate to a particular name or group of names when this
appears to be in the interest of stability of nomenclature. Authors submitting cases
should regard themselves as acting on behalf of the zoological community and the
Commission will treat all applications on this basis. Applicants should discuss their
cases with other workers in the same field before submitting applications, so that they
are aware of any wider implications and the likely reactions of other zoologists.

Text. Typed in double spacing, this should consist of numbered paragraphs setting
out the details of the case and leading to a final paragraph of formal proposals to the
Commission. Text references should give dates and pages in parentheses, e.g. ‘Daudin
(1800, p. 49) described ...’. The Abstract will be prepared by the Commission’s
Secretariat.

References. These should be given for all authors cited. Where possible, ten or more
reasonably recent references should be given illustrating the usage of names which are
to be conserved or given precedence over older names. The title of periodicals should
be in full and in italics; numbers of volumes, parts, etc. should be in arabic figures,
separated by a colon from page numbers. Book titles should be in italics and followed
by the number of pages and plates, the publisher and place of publication. More
detailed instructions on the preparation of references are given in BZN 59: 159-160.

Submission of Application. One copy should be sent to: Executive Secretary, the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History
Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. It would help to reduce the time
it takes to process the large number of applications received if the typescript could be
accompanied by a disk with copy in IBM PC compatible format, or the script sent via
e-mail to ‘iczn@nhm.ac.uk’ within the message or as an attachment (disks and
attachments to be in Word, rtf or ASCII text). It would also be helpful if applications
were accompanied by photocopies of relevant pages of the main references where this
is possible.

The Commission’s Secretariat is very willing to advise on all aspects of the
formulation of an application.

Contents — continued

On the proposed conservation of the usage of the names Phymaturus Gravenhorst,
1838 and Lacerta palluma Molina, 1782 (currently Phymaturus palluma;
Reptilia, Sauria) by Soe ofa HOBIE for Lacerta palluma Molina, 1782.
H. M. Smith.

On the proposed conservation 3 the ssetien name oF Wines aE eonaaler Ahl, 1937
(Osteichthyes, Perciformes). H.-J. Paepke; A. Zarske .

Rulings of the Commission

OPINION 2046 (Case 3185). Criconema Hofmanner & Menzel, 1914 (Nematoda):
Eubostrichus guernei Certes, 1899 designated as the type species .

OPINION 2047 (Case 2652). CHoRISTIDAE Verrill, 1882 (Mollusca, @avrosoda):
spelling emended to CHORISTEIDAE, so removing the homonymy with CHORISTIDAE
Esben-Petersen, 1915 (Insecta, Mecoptera) .

OPINION 2048 (Case 3212). Thalassema taenioides tkeda 1904 (nent liked
taenioides, Echiura): specific name conserved

OPINION 2049 (Case 3174). Pardosa C. L. Koch, 1847 andl Mewerone Siena 1885
(Arachnida, Araneae): usage conserved by the designation of Lycosa alacris
C. L. Koch, 1833 as the type species of Pardosa .

OPINION 2050 (Case 3189). Ammotrecha Banks, 1900 and Vaan echula Recuen
1934 (Arachnida, Solifugae): usage conserved by the designation of Galeodes
limbata Lucas, 1835 as the type species of Ammotrecha; and Eremobates Banks,
1900 and Eremorhax Roewer, 1934: usage conserved by the designation of
Galeodes pallipes Say, 1823 as the type species of Eremobates .

OPINION 2051 (Case 3179). Halacarus Gosse, 1855, H. ctenopus Gas, 1855 ane
Thalassarachna Packard, 1871 (Arachnida, Acari): usage of the names conserved
by the designation of a neotype for H. cfenopus . :

OPINION 2052 (Case 3183). Pagurus clypeatus Fabricius, 1787 cqunenily oenonita
clypeatus; Crustacea, Decapoda): usage conserved by designation of a neotype .

OPINION 2053 (Case 3207). STAPHYLINIDAE Latreille, 1804 (Insecta, Coleoptera):
65 specific names conserved .

OPINION 2054 (Case 3201). Scar aber aeacicties Villers; 1789 cunenty penodon
bidens punctatus; Insecta, Coleoptera): specific name conserved :

OPINION 2055 (Case 3176). Ptinus tectus Boieldieu, 1856 (Insecta, Coleoptera
usage of the specific name conserved i

OPINION 2056 (Case 3186). Squalus edwardsii (Gumenty, icallalgaien us Sear ae
Chondrichthyes, Carcharhiniformes): attributed to Schinz, 1822 and edwardsii
conserved as the correct original spelling of the specific name .

OPINION 2057 (Case 3028). pean) Nardo, 1827 ees Cyusnedon-
tiformes): conserved .

OPINION 2058 (Case 2661). MACROPODINAE ieisedenaen! 1948 (Osteichthyes,
Perciformes): spelling emended to MACROPODUSINAE so removing the homonymy
with MACROPODINAE Gray, 1821 (Mammalia, Marsupialia) .

OPINION 2059 (Case 275). Camelus Linnaeus, 1758 (Mammalia, Aniiodetsyee
Camelus bactrianus Linnaeus, 1758 designated as the type species A \gcd

Book Review

Hooper, J. N. A. and van Soest, R. W. M. 2002. Systema Porifera. A guide to the
classification of Sponges. 2 vols. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York,
Boston, Dordrecht, London, Moscow. ISBN 0-306-47260-0. D. J. Patterson .

Information and Instructions for Authors

257

260

CONTENTS

Notices . :

New patie ane to ‘the Gommeten : :
The International Commission on Zoological Sfeneng ence -
The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature .

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature .

The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

The Commission’s website

Publications .

Funding appeal.

Applications
Hastigerinella Cushman, 1927 and Clavigerinella Bol, Loeblich & Tappan, 1957
(Rhizopoda, Foraminiferida): proposed conservation of usage by designation

of Hastigerina digitata Rhumbler, 1911 as the type species of Hastigerinella..

H. Coxall . eS

Titanodamon johnstonii acne “194 (junc Danes dranneioree Acichmee
Amblypygi): proposed conservation of the specific name. P. Weygoldt

Leptusa Kraatz, 1856 and Cyllopisalia Pace, 1982 (Insecta, COE proposed
conservation. V. I. Gusarov & L. H. Herman .. . :

Curculio picipes Marsham, 1802 (currently Procas picipes: “esa 2: * @olenninele
proposed conservation of the specific name. R. T. Thompson .

Thereva Latreille, 1797 and Phasia Latreille. 1804 (Insecta, Pipe oe
conservation of usage by designation of Musca plebeja Linnaeus, 1758 as the type
species of Thereva. K. C. Holston, M. E. Irwin & F. C. Thompson 2

Rhamphomyia (Rhamphomyia) Meigen, 1822 and Rhamphomyia (Parana ia
Frey, 1922 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed conservation of usage of the subgeneric
names by designation of Empis sulcata Meigen, 1804 as the type Rae of
Rhamphomyia. M. Bartak & B. J. Sinclair

Macropodus concolor Ahi, 1937 (Osteichthyes. Pecetigenes): ee conservation
of the specific name. I. Schindler & W. Staeck

Chitra chitra Nutaphand. 1986 (Reptilia, Testudines): Sanyet oe =
the specific name over that of Chitra selenkae Jaekel. 1911. W. P. McCord &
P. C. H. Pritchard

Palaeortyx phasianoides Milne- Di 2s 1369 (Av es, (Galhoenese Seeptsst conser-
vation of usage of the specific name by the designation of a neotype. U. B. Géhlich
& C. Mourer-Chauvire .

Comments

On the draft proposal to emend the Code with respect to trace fossils. P. K. Tubbs.

On the neotypification of Protists, especially Ciliates (Protozoa. ems
M. A. Sleigh: I. Domingos da Silva Neto: J. Sikora. i

On the proposed conservation of usage of Acmaeodera Shee s 1829 and
Acmaeoderella Cobos, 1955 (Insecta, Coleoptera) by designation of Buprestis
cylindrica Fabricius, 1775 as the type species of Acmaeodera. VY. Sakalian:
E. C. MacRae; S. Bily: A. Sundholm . ae

On the proposed precedence of Ovula gisortiana ay 1859 0 over Ch ypraea ee
J. de C. Sowerby in Dixon, 1850. J. A. Todd .

Page

177
177
-179
179
179
180
180
180
181

182

188

Continued on Inside Back Cover

Printed in the United Kingdom by Henry Ling Limited, at the Dorset Press, Dorchester. DT! 1HD

re

The

Bulletin Crm)
~——

Zackoeical
Nomenclature

wine's.

on me Wy Nom

“a>
Enc one

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

The Bulletin is published four times a year for the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, a
charity (no. 211944) registered in England. The annual subscription for 2004 is £127
or $225, postage included; individual subscribers for personal use are offered a
subscription of £63 or $112. All manuscripts, letters and orders should be sent to:

The Executive Secretary,

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,

c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road,

London, SW7 S5BD, U.K. (Tel. 020 7942 5653)
(e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk)
(http://www.iczn.org)

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Officers

President
Vice-President
Executive Secretary

Members

Dr M. Alonso-Zarazaga
(Spain; Coleoptera)
Prof W. J. Bock (U.S.A.; Ornithology)
Prof Dr W. Bohme
(Germany; Amphibia, Reptilia)
Prof P. Bouchet (France; Mollusca)
Prof D. J. Brothers
(South Africa; Hymenoptera)
Dr D. R. Calder (Canada; Cnidaria)
Dr W. N. Eschmeyer
(U.S.A.; Ichthyology)
Dr N. L. Evenhuis (U.S.A.; Diptera)
Prof R. A. Fortey (U.K.; Trilobita)
Dr R. B. Halliday (Australia; Acari)
Dr I. M. Kerzhner (Russia; Heteroptera)
Prof Dr G. Lamas (Peru; Lepidoptera)
Dr E. Macpherson (Spain; Crustacea)

Secretariat

Dr N. L. Evenhuis (U.S. A.)
Dr W. N. Eschmeyer (U.S. A.)
Dr A. Wakeham-Dawson (U.K.)

Dr V. Mahnert
(Switzerland; Ichthyology)
Prof U. R. Martins de Souza
(Brazil; Coleoptera)
Prof S. F. Mawatari (Japan; Bryozoa)
Prof A. Minelli (Italy; Myriapoda)
Dr P. K. L. Ng (Singapore;
Crustacea, Ichthyology)
Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark; Bryozoa)
Dr L. Papp (Hungary; Diptera)
Prof D. J. Patterson (Australia; Protista)
Dr G. Rosenberg (U.S. A.; Mollusca)
Prof D. X. Song (China; Hirudinea)
Prof P. Stys
(Czech Republic; Heteroptera)
Mr J. van Tol
(The Netherlands; Odonata)

Dr A. Wakeham-Dawson (Executive Secretary and Bulletin Editor)

Mrs S. Morris (Zoologist)

Mr J. D. D. Smith (Scientific Administrator)
Dr P. K. Tubbs (Nomenclatural Consultant)

Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature

The Earl of Cranbrook (Chairman)

Dr M. K. Howarth (Secretary and Managing Director)

© International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 2003

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003 261

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Volume 60, part 4 (pp. 261-330) 18 December 2003

Notices

(1) Applications and correspondence relating to applications to the Commission
should be sent to the Executive Secretary at the address given on the inside of the
front cover. English is the official language of the Bulletin. Please take careful note of
instructions to authors (present in a one or two page form in each volume), as
incorrectly formatted applications will be returned to authors for revision. The
Commission’s Secretariat will answer general nomenclatural (as opposed to purely
taxonomic) enquiries and assist with the formulation of applications. As far as it
can, the Secretariat will check the main nomenclatural references in applications.
Correspondence should be by e-mail to iczn@nhm.ac.uk where possible.

(2) The Commission votes on applications six to eight months after they have been
published, although this period is normally extended to enable comments to be
submitted. Comments for publication relating to applications (either in support or
against, or offering alternative solutions) should be submitted as soon as possible.
Comments may be edited.

(3) Requests for help and advice on the Code can be made direct to the
Commission via the Internet. To register free of charge with the Commission’s
Discussion List send an e-mail to ‘join-iczn-list@lyris.bishopmuseum.org’, leaving
the subject line and body of the message blank (for further details see BZN 59: 234).

(4) The Commission also welcomes the submission of general-interest articles on
nomenclatural themes or nomenclatural notes on particular issues. These may deal
with taxonomy, but should be mainly nomenclatural in content. Articles and notes
should be sent to the Executive Secretary.

New applications to the Commission

The following new applications have been received since the last issue of the
Bulletin (volume 60, part 3, 30 September 2003) went to press. Under Article 82 of
the Code, existing usage of names in the applications is to be maintained until the
Commission’s rulings on the applications (the Opinions) have been published.

CASE 3291: promuna Bonelli, 1810 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed emendation
of spelling to DROMIEINA to remove homonymy with prommpAE De Haan, 1833
(Crustacea, Decapoda). Authors: T. Deuve, D. Guinot & J.-M. Bouchard (France).

CASE 3296: Porcellio reaumurii (currently Hemilepistus reaumurii; Crustacea,
Isopoda): proposed conservation of the specific name and attribution to Milne
Edwards, 1840. Author: L.B. Holthuis (The Netherlands).

262 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003

CASE 3297: Sphyraena acus Lacepede, 1803 (currently Ty/osurus acus; Osteich-
thyes): proposed reinstatement of priority over Esox imperialis Rafinesque, 1810
(currently Belone imperialis) by amendment of Opinion 900. Authors: B.B. Collette.
N.Y. Parin & P.P. Shirshov (U.S.A. & Russia).

CASE 3298: Ceutorhynchus Germar, 1824 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conser-
vation of two specific names. Author: D.V. Alford (U.K.).

CASE 3299: Staphylinus punctulatus Paykull, 1789 (currently Gyrohypnus punctu-
latus; Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation. Author: V. Assing (Germany).

CASE 3300: Halipegus occidualis Krull, 1935 and H. eccentricus Thomas, 1939
(Digenea, Hemiuridae): proposed conservation. Author: D.F. McAlpine (Canada).

CASE 3301: TERMopSIDAE Holmgren, 1911 (Insecta, Isoptera): proposed prec-
edence Over STOLOTERMITINAE Holmgren, 1910. Authors: M.S. Engel & K. Krishna
(U.S.A.).

CASE 3302: Buprestis sexsignata Say, 1839 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed
conservation of the specific name over those of Chrysobothris ignipes Gory &
Laporte, 1838 and C. germari Gory & Laporte, 1838. Author: T.C. MacRae
(U.S.A.).

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and its
publications

The roles of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and of the
International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature are described in the Bulletin of
Zoological Nomenclature, vol. 60, pages 94-97 and 179-181, together with details of
the following publications and how to obtain them:

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature,

International Code of Zoological Nomenclature,

Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology,

Towards Stability in the Names of Animals—a History of the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1895-1995.

Full details will be found on the Commission’s Website www.iczn.org.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003 263

DECLARATION 44
Amendment of Article 74.7.3

DECLARATION:

(1) The wording of Article 74.7.3 is hereby amended to read ‘contain an express
statement of deliberate designation (merely citing a specimen as “‘lectotype”’ is
insufficient)’.

(2) An Example is added directly below Article 74.7.3 to read ‘Example.
A statement such as “‘lectotype hereby designated”’, “‘lectotype by present
designation”, “I choose specimen X as lectotype” would fulfil this
requirement, but “‘lectotype: specimen X” would not’.

(3) The following Recommendation is added to read ‘Recommendation 74G. Not
merely for curatorial purposes. The designation of lectotypes should be done as
part of a revisionary or other taxonomic work to enhance the stability of
nomenclature, and not for mere curatorial convenience’.

(4) These amendments are backdated and apply to all works published after
31 December 1999.

History of the proposal

A proposal to delete Article 74.7.3 of the Code was made (see BZN 58(2): 133;
Zoosystematica Rossica, 10(1): 1-7) on the grounds that it was unnecessary and
required repetitious statements to be made when several lectotypes were being
designated in a revisionary work. The proposal was widely supported by zoologists
(see BZN 58(2): 133-140). A draft proposal to amend Article 74.7.3 was published in
BZN: 59(4): 278-279. On 8 April 2002, Commissioners were asked to vote on
whether they considered the proposed amendments to constitute a minor change and
asked to comment on the wording of the draft proposal. Over two-thirds of the
Commissioners voted in agreement that it was a minor change to the Code and
accepted the proposal’s wording (20 FOR, 3 AGAINST and 5 did not vote; see BZN:
59(4): 279-280). Under Articles 78.3 and 80.1 of the Code, a Declaration (provisional
amendment to the Code) was drafted by the Executive Secretary and circulated to the
Commission for its approval on 22 July 2003. The Declaration was approved and
under Article 80.1 shall remain in force until ratified or rejected by the International
Union of Biological Sciences (IUBS), the international body from which the
Commission derives its functions and powers (Article 77 of the Code).

264 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003

International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature
Financial Report for 2002

After 16 years as Executive Secretary of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature, Dr Philip Tubbs retired early in 2002 and the new
Secretary is Dr Andrew Wakeham-Dawson. Mrs Anthea Gentry also left the
Secretariat in May 2002 after serving as Zoologist for 14 years. These changes and
new contracts for the remaining staff of the Secretariat led to a reduction in the
salary costs of nearly £7,000 as compared with 2001. Nevertheless, the Trust had a
deficit of £4,674 for the year (£60 less than in 2001), due mainly to the diminishing
proceeds from both the 4th edition of the International Code of Zoological
Nomenclature (£10,033), and from royalties on foreign translations of the Code
(£3,245). £33,971 was received from sales of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature,
the Official Lists and Indexes and the Centenary History of the Commission. Interest
and investment income of £9,647, together with £4,046 from donations and £2,004
capital gain from the sale of investments, brought the total income for the year to
£62,946.

The main expenditures in 2002 were £55,375 for the salaries, fees and National
Insurance of the Commission’s Secretariat, and £10,185 for printing the Bulletin of
Zoological Nomenclature and for the distribution of all publications. Other costs of
£1,602 for office expenses and £458 for depreciation of office equipment brought the
total expenditure to £67,620.

The main work of the Commission during the year was on applications from
zoologists in 20 countries to resolve problems of zoological nomenclature. These were
published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, together with Opinions
(rulings) made by the Commission on other cases. Further applications were under
consideration. Advice was given by the Commission’s Secretariat in response to a
large number of informal enquiries on matters of nomenclature from zoologists
worldwide.

The Commission’s Secretariat was again housed in The Natural History Museum,
London, whom we thank for their continuing support. The Trust wishes to express
its thanks to the donors listed below who contributed to its work during the year.
Continuation of the work of the Commission for the international zoological and
palaeontological community is considerably helped by the support received from
donors to the Trust.

M.K. HOWARTH

Secretary and Managing Director

7 April 2003

List of donations and grants received during the year 2002

American Association for Zoological Nomenclature £3,385
Canadian Society of Zoologists 85
Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters 116
Royal Entomological Society of London 300
Zoological Society of London 160

Total £4,046

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003

INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDED

31 DECEMBER 2002

Income
SALE OF PUBLICATIONS
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
International Code of Zoological Nomenclature
Royalties on Code
Official Lists and Indexes
Centenary History

GRANTS AND DONATIONS
BANK AND INVESTMENT INTEREST
CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF INVESTMENTS

Expenditure
SALARIES, NATIONAL INSURANCE AND FEES
OFFICE EXPENSES

£30,551
10,033
3,245
3,279
141

47,249

PRINTING OF BULLETIN AND DISTRIBUTION OF

PUBLICATIONS
DEPRECIATION OF OFFICE EQUIPMENT

Deficit for the year

4,046
9,647
2,004

62,946

55375
1,602

10,185
458

67,620

£4,674

266 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003

Case 3268

Conidophrys Chatton & Lwoff, 1934 (Ciliophora, Pilisuctorida):
proposed conservation

I.V. Dovgal

Schmathausen Institute of Zoology, Khmelnitsky Street 15, 01601 Kiev,
Ukraine (e-mail: dovgal@dovgal.kiev.ua)

Abstract. The purpose of this application, in relation to Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is
the conservation of the widely used name Conidophrys Chatton & Lwoff, 1934 for a
genus of pilisuctorid ciliates (family CONIDOPHRYIDAE Kirby, 1941) parasitic on
marine crustaceans. The older name Mycodinium Averinzeff, 1916 is a probable
subjective synonym, but it has never been used and its suppression is proposed.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Ciliophora; Pilisuctorida; CONIDOPHRYIDAE;
Conidophrys; Mycodinium; Conidophrys pilisuctor; parasitic ciliates.

1. Averinzeff (1916, p. 183) described, illustrated and named Mycodinium fucatum
n.g., N.Sp., a protist parasitic on a marine amphipod belonging to the genus Caprella
Lamarck, 1801; his work was entirely based on fixed material received from Trieste,
Italy. Averinzeff was unsure about the taxonomic position of M. fucatum but
considered that it was probably a dinoflagellate. His generic name remained unused
until it was cited by Jankowski in 1989 (see para. 5 below); his specific name has never
been used.

2. Chatton & Lwoff (1934, p. 697) described and illustrated the new genus and
species Conidophrys pilisuctor, parasitic on the amphipod Corophium acherusicum
Costa, 1857 at Séte, France. Chatton & Lwoff (p. 699) diagnosed a new family
*Pilisuctoridae’ to contain C. pilisuctor as the only known species.

3. Kirby (1941) spelled Chatton & Lwoffs generic name as Conidiophrys, and
pointed out that under the Code their family name ‘Pilisuctoridae’ was unavailable
because it was not based on the name of a type genus. This remains true under Article
29.1 of the current Code (however, ordinal names such as Pilisuctorida and the
vernacular term “pilisuctorid’ are not invalidated by the Code). Kirby (1941, p. 954)
proposed the family name Conidiophryidae. Guilcher (1951) corrected Kirby’s
spellings but under Article 35.4.1, the valid family name is CONIDOPHRYIDAE Kirby,
1941 (and not Guilcher, 1951).

4. The literature on species of Conidophrys is very extensive (see for example
Chatton & Lwoff, 1934, 1935, 1936; Guilcher, 1951; Raabe, 1964; Fenchel, 1965:
Jankowski, 1966, 1972; Jones & Khan, 1970; Puytorac, 1994; Morado & Small, 1995:
Dovgal, 1998; Boshko & Dovgal, 2000).

5. Jankowski (1989, p. 86) suggested in a brief purely nomenclatural note
that Conidophrys Chatton &- Lwoff, 1934 was a junior synonym of Mycodin-
ium Averinzeff, 1916 and should therefore be replaced. He also stated that

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003 267

CONIDOPHRYIDAE should be replaced by the new family name MycoDINIIDAE, but under
Article 40.1 this would not be so even if Mycodinium were to be accepted as the valid
senior subjective synonym of Conidophrys.

6. As mentioned above, the names Conidophrys and CONIDOPHRYIDAE have been in
continuous and wide use for many years, but, apart from Jankowski’s note,
Mycodinium has not been used in any work since its original publication in 1916; to
now replace Conidophrys by Mycodinium (in the family CONIDOPHRYIDAE) would cause
confusion.

7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to use its plenary power to suppress the name Mycodinium Averinzeff, 1916 for
the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of
Homonymy;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name
Conidophrys Chatton & Lwoff, 1934 (gender: feminine), type species by
original designation Conidophrys pilisuctor Chatton & Lwoff, 1934;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name pilisuctor
Chatton & Lwoff, 1934, as published in the binomen Conidophrys pilisuctor
(specific name of the type species of Conidophrys Chatton & Lwoff, 1934);

(4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name
CONIDOPHRYIDAE Kirby, 1941, type genus Conidophrys Chatton & Lwoff, 1934;

(5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in
Zoology the name Mycodinium Averinzeff, 1916, as suppressed in (1) above.

References

Averinzeff, S.V. 1916. On a new organism of the type of Protozoa. Revue Zoologique Russe,
1(6/7): 180-185.

Boshko, E.G. & Doygal, I.V. 2000. The first record of pilisuctorid ciliates (Ciliophora,
Pilisuctorida) in the Black Sea. Vestnik Zoologii, 34(6): 112.

Chatton, E. & Lwoff, A. 1934. Sur un infusoire parasite des poils sécréteurs des Crustacés
Edriophthalmes et la famille nouvelle des Pilisuctoridae. Comptes Rendus des Séances de
l' Académie des Sciences (Paris), 199(16): 696-699.

Chatton, E. & Lwoff, A. 1935. Les cilies apostomes. Morphologie, cytologie, éthologie,
évolution, systématique. I. Apergu historique et générale. Etude monographique des
genres et des espéces. Archives de Zoologie Expérimentale et Générale, 77: 1-453.

Chatton, E. & Lwoff, A. 1936. Les Pilisuctoridae Ch. et Lw. Désmodexie, orientation et polarite
chez les infusoires. Bulletin Biologique de la France et de la Belgique, 70: 86-144.

Dovygal, I.V. 1998. The origin and evolution of the adhesive organelles in infusoria
(Cihophora). Vestnik Zoologii, 32(1/2): 18-29.

Fenchel, T. 1965. On the ciliate fauna associated with the marine species of the amphipod genus
Gammarus J.C. Fabricius. Ophelia, 2: 281-303.

Guilcher, I. 1951. Contribution a étude des Cilies Gemmipares, Chonotriches et Tenta-
culiféres. Annales des Sciences Naturelles (Zoologie), 13: 33-132.

Jankowski, A.W. 1966. Morphology and evolution of Ciliophora. VI. Morphology and
life-cycle of Conidophrys enkystotrophos sp. nov. and the problem of phylogeny and
taxonomic position of the family Conidophryidae Guilcher, 1951. Pp. 123-129 in:
Materials of the IV conference of Young Scientists of Moldavia, Zoology (Kishinevy).

Jankowski, A.W. 1972. Recapitulation of phylogenesis in ciliate ontogeny. Pp. 95—123 in:
Problems of Evolution, vol. 2. Nauka, Novosibirsk.

Jankowski, A.W. 1989. Replacement of unavailable generic names in Ciliophora. Vestnik
Zoologii, 23(2): 86.

268 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003

Jones, M.B. & Khan, M.A. 1970. The occurrence of Conidophrys species (Protozoa, Ciliata) on
members of the Jaera albifrons Leach group. Acta Protozoologica, 8: 149-153.

Kirby, H. 1941. Relationships between certain protozoa and other animals. Pp. 890-1008 in:
Protozoa in biological research. Columbia University Press, New York.

Morado, J.F. & Small, E.B. 1995. Ciliate parasites and related diseases of Crustacea: a review.
Reviews in Fisheries Science, 3: 275-354.

Puytorac, P. 1994. Sous-classe des Apostomatia. Systematique. Pp. 823-846 in: Traité de
Zoologie (Anatomie, systématique, biologie), vol. 2, fasc. 2. (Infusoires ciliés). Masson,
Paris.

Raabe, Z. 1964. Zarys Protozoologii. 283 pp. Polish Scientific Publications, Warsaw.

Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 60: 94.

Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003 269

Case 3281

Nahecaris Jaekel, 1921 (Malacostraca, Phyllocarida, Archaeostraca):
proposed precedence over Dilophaspis Traquair in Walther, 1903

Derek E.G. Briggs

Department of Geology and Geophysics, Yale University, P.O. Box 208109,
New Haven, CT 06520-8109, U.S.A. (e-mail: derek.briggs@yale.edu)

Christoph Bartels

Deutsches Berghau-Museum, Am Bergbaumuseum 28, D-44791 Bochum,
Germany (e-mail: christoph.bartels@bergbaumuseum.de)

Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 23.9.3 and 81.2.3 of the
Code, is to conserve the generic name Nahecaris Jaekel, 1921 for a group of Lower
Devonian phyllocarid crustaceans (order Archaeostraca) by giving it precedence over
the older name Dilophaspis Traquair in Walther, 1903 whenever the two names are
considered to be synonyms.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Phyllocarida; Archaeostraca; Nahecaris; Dilo-
phaspis; Nahecaris stuertzi; Dilophaspis lata; Hunsriick Slate; Lower Devonian;
Germany.

1. Traquair in Walther (1903, pp. 30-31) proposed the name Dilophaspis lata for
a fossil from the Emsian of Rossbach (Hessen, Germany) that he interpreted as the
dorsal shield of a cyathaspid (i.e. a heterostracan fish). The type species of
Dilophaspis Traquair in Walther, 1903 (p. 30) by original designation is the new
species D. lata Traquair in Walther, 1903. The single specimen reported was not
figured. In 1942 Solle (p. 125, footnote) recorded the opinion of W. Gross that D. lata
was not a fish but a large arthropod.

2. The new generic and specific names of Nahecaris Stirtzi (corrected to N. stuertzi)
were proposed by Jaekel (1921, p. 290) for a fossil phyllocarid crustacean from the
Lower Devonian roofing slates of Bundenbach and Gemtinden. Due to the excep-
tional preservation of the limbs and other features in pyrite this taxon has become
one of the most widely known fossil phyllocarids (Bartels et al., 1998).

3. In 1990 Hahn revised Dilophaspis lata and figured (for the first time) the
holotype and only reported specimen. He demonstrated that it is a phyllocarid
crustacean with strong similarities to the contemporaneous genus Nahecaris and
pointed out that the discovery of more material of D. lata would probably demon-
strate that it and N. stwertzi are only distinct at the specific level. Hahn (1990, p. 15)
noted that ‘in this case, unfortunately, Di/ophaspis has nomenclatural precedence,
and the well known name Nahecaris becomes its younger subjective synonym’.

4. Brauckmann et al. (2002, p. 217) described a new species of phyllocarid from the
Emsian of the Western Eifel and Luxembourg that they named Dilophaspis frankei.
This species combines morphological characters of both Dilophaspis and Nahecaris

270 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003

leading Brauckmann et al. to identify them as subjective synonyms. In their view ‘this

means that, unfortunately, Dilophaspis has nomenclatural precedence, whereas the

well known and better understood name Nahecaris as its younger subjective synonym

has to be suppressed’ (Brauckmann et al., 2002, p. 216).

5. The genus Nahecaris from the Hunsriick Slate was redescribed by Bergstrém et
al. (1987; 1989) who assigned specimens to Nahecaris stuertzi, Nahecaris? balssi
Broili, 1930 and Nahecaris sp. In 2002 Rode & Liebermann emended the diagnosis of
Nahecaris to include Nahecaris bipennis (Clarke, 1898) from the Middle Devonian
of New York State extending its occurrence beyond the Hunsrtick Slate.

6. The name Dilophaspis Traquair in Walther, 1903 has formal priority over
Nahecaris. However, the taxon has been called Nahecaris since Jaekel described N.
stuertzi in 1921. The identity of Dilophaspis as a crustacean, as opposed to a fish, was
only confirmed in 1990 and it was not formally synonymized with Nahecaris until 2002.
The reconstruction of D. frankei by Brauckmann et al. (2002, fig. 6), apart from the
carapace, is based entirely on N. stuertzi from the Hunsrtick Slate; only the carapace of
D. frankei is known. The assertion by Brauckmann et al. (2002, p. 220) that Nahecaris
does not meet the condition of Article 23.9.1.2 is incorrect. We have consulted over 40
works that mention Nahecaris (over half of them including reconstructions of the
animal or illustrations of specimens) by over 40 different authors (many joint) pub-
lished in the last 50 years (a list is held by the Commission Secretariat). Ironically, both
Hahn (1990) and Brauckmann et al. (2002) stated that the name Nahecaris is ‘well
known’ and expressed regret that Dilophaspis has precedence, yet neither approached
the Commission with a proposal to give Nahecaris precedence. The use of Dilophaspis
over Nahecaris would cause considerable confusion given the status of Nahecaris as one
of the best and most completely known examples of a fossil phyllocarid. We therefore
propose that Nahecaris be given precedence over Dilophaspis whenever these names are
considered to be synonyms. However, in the unlikely event that future discoveries show
that Nahecaris is not congeneric with Dilophaspis, both names would still be available
to denote the two taxa.

7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:

(1) to use its plenary power to give the name Nahecaris Jaekel, 1921 precedence
over the name Dilophaspis Traquair in Walther, 1903 whenever the two are
considered to be synonyms;
to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) Nahecaris Jaekel, 1921 (gender: feminine), type species by original desig-

nation N. stuertzi Jaekel, 1921, with the endorsement that it is to be given
precedence over the name Dilophaspis Traquair in Walther, 1903 whenever
the two names are considered to be synonyms;

(b) Dilophaspis Traquair in Walther, 1903 (gender: feminine), type species by
original designation D. /ata Traquair in Walther, 1903, with the endorse-
ment that it is not to be given priority over the name Nahecaris Jaekel, 1921
whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms;

to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:

(a) stuertzi Jaekel, 1921, as published in the binomen Nahecaris stuertzi
(specific name of the type species of Nahecaris Jaekel, 1921);

(b) /ata Traquair in Walther, 1903, as published in the binomen Dilophaspis lata
(specific name of the type species of Dilophaspis Traquair in Walther, 1903).

—~
ie)
—

(3

a

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003 271
References

Bartels, C., Briggs, D.E.G. & Brassel, G. 1998. The Fossils of the Hunsrtick Slate - marine life
in the Devonian. xiv, 309 pp. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Bergstrom, J., Briggs, D.E.G., Dahl, E., Rolfe, W.D.I. & Stiirmer, W. 1987. Nahecaris stuertzi,
a phyllocarid crustacean from the Lower Devonian Hunsrtick Slate. Paldontologische
Zeitschrift, 61: 273-298.

Bergstrom, J., Briggs, D.E.G., Dahl, E., Rolfe, W.D.I. & Stiirmer, W. 1989. Rare phyllocarid
crustaceans from the Devonian Hunsriick Slate. Paldontologische Zeitschrift, 63: 319-333.

Brauckmann, C., Koch, L. & Groéning, E. 2002. New evidence for the synonymy of Dilophaspis
and Nahecaris (Phyllocarida; Lower Devonian; Rhenish Massif). Paldontologische
Zeitschrift, 76: 215-222.

Hahn, G. 1990. Revision von Dilophaspis lata (Crustacea, Unter-Devon). Geologica et
Palaeontologica, 24: 11-15.

Jaekel, O. 1921. Uber einen neuen Phyllocariden aus dem Unterdevon der Bundenbacher
Dachschiefer. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Geologischen Gesellschaft, 72: 290-292.

Rode, A.L. & Liebermann, B.S. 2002. Phylogenetic and biogeographic analysis of Devonian
phyllocarid crustaceans. Journal of Paleontology, 76: 271-286.

Solle, G. 1942. Die Kondel-Gruppe (Oberkoblenz) im siidlichen Rheinischen Schiefergebirge.
IV-V. Abhandlungen der Senckenbergischen Naturforschenden Gesellschaft, 464: 95-156.

Traquair, R.H. 1903. Dilophaspis lata. Pp. 30-31 in Walther, J.K., Das Unterdevon zwischen
Marburg a. L. und Herborn (Nassau). III. Palaeontologischer Theil. Pisces. Neues
Jahrbuch ftir Mineralogie, Geologie und Paldontologie, 17: 1-75.

This is contribution 15 within the framework of the international Project Nahecaris.

Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 60: 178.

Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).

Nahecaris stuertzi Jaekel, 1921. HS 322 Deutsches Bergbau-Museum Bochum (original of Bergstrém et al.,
1987, fig. 2a and Bartels et al., 1998, fig. 102).

272 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003
Case 3253

Libellula aenea Linnaeus, 1758 (currently Cordulia aenea) and

L. flavomaculata Vander Linden, 1825 (currently Somatochlora
flavomaculata; Insecta, Odonata): proposed conservation of usage of
the specific names by the replacement of the lectotype of L. aenea with
a newly designated lectotype

Reinhard Jodicke

Am Liebfrauenbusch 3, D-26655 Westerstede, Germany (e-mail:
r.joedicke@t-online.de)

Jan van Tol

National Museum of Natural History Naturalis, P.O. Box 9517, NL-2300
RA Leiden, The Netherlands (e-mail: tol@nnm.nl)

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve, under Article 74.1 of the
Code, the current usage of the names of two dragonfly species. In 1758, Linnaeus
established the name Libellula aenea for three specimens. These have subsequently
been recognized as belonging to two species: L. aenea and L. flavomaculata Vander
Linden, 1825. In 1956, Fraser designated one of Linnaeus’s specimens as the
lectotype of L. aenea. However, the specimen he designated was the one used by
Vander Linden to denote his species L. flavomaculata. Fraser’s action made L. aenea
a senior objective synonym of L. flavomaculata. It is proposed that one of Linnaeus’s
specimens other than the one selected by Fraser be designated as the lectotype of
L. aenea, thus conserving prevailing usage of both names.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Insecta; Odonata; coRDULNDAE; Cordulia
aenea; Somatochlora flavomaculata; dragonflies.

1. Linnaeus (1758, p. 544) established the nominal species Libellula aenea with a
short description “L. thorace eneo-viridi’. He cited three references: (1) Fauna Svecica
(Linnaeus, 1746); (2) Historia insectorum (Raius [Ray], 1710); and (3) Insecten-
Belustigung (R6sel von Rosenhof, 1749). The habitat was given as ‘Europa’. In Fauna
Svecica (1746), Linnaeus had included three specimens in a series, giving them the
numbers 768 (one male specimen) and 769 (one male and one female specimen). He
described the two groups of specimens separately and was clearly aware of their
different characters: “[769] Preecedentis simillima, sed alia’. Nevertheless, he evidently
considered all three specimens to be so alike that in the 10th edition of Systema
Naturae he introduced only one name, Libellula aenea, to cover numbers 768 and 769,
in addition to the cited references. In the 12th edition of Systema Naturae (1767,
p. 902) Linnaeus also included both numbers under the name L. aenea. A critical
review of the Raius (1710) and Rosel von Rosenhof (1749) references reveals that
they both relate to the species represented by specimen no. 769.

2. Vander Linden (1825) evidently recognized the problem arising from Linnaeus’s
use of the single name L. aenea for two different taxa, and (p. 19) introduced the

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003 273

name L. flavomaculata to denote the taxon represented by number 768 (male
specimen), leaving number 769 as L. aenea. Vander Linden’s action in establishing a
new nominal species was in agreement with Linnaeus’s view of 1746 and was accepted
by the majority of contemporary workers, particularly Charpentier (1840, p. 91),
Hagen (1840, p. 41) and de Selys Longchamps (1840, pp. 67, 210; 1850, p. 73). Both
names as established by Linnaeus (1758) and Vander Linden (1825) are in prevailing
use (see para. 5 below).

3. McLachlan (1898) took a contrary view and argued that specimen no. 768 was
the only specimen representing L. aenea, but concluded his discussion by saying that
in the interests of avoiding an ‘intolerable nuisance’ he wished to avoid any
nomenclatural correction. Many years later, Fraser (1956, pp. 20-21) took up
McLachlan’s interpretation of the name L. aenea as denoting only specimen no. 768
and stated ‘the type of L. aenea Linn. is a male [no. 768] labelled as [L. aenea] by
Linnaeus himself and now in the Linnean collection, London’. This is a lectotype
designation under Article 74.5. He considered the species under no. 769 to be
unnamed and (p. 20) introduced the new name Cordulia linaenea.

4. Longfield (1957) pointed out that the introduction of the name C. /inaenea was
not only unjustified but also unnecessary since there were earlier available names in
the synonymy of L. aenea. No one has adopted the name C. /inaenea. Buchholz (1967,
p. 234) rejected the name C. linaenea in favour of C. aeneaturfosa, which he attributed
to Forster, 1902. Comments by Jurzitza (1969) and Schmidt (1978) have prevented a
wider acceptance of Fraser’s (1956) and Buchholz’s (1967) nomenclatural actions.

5. The current prevailing use of the names S. flavomaculata and C. aenea as
understood by Vander Linden (1825) is well documented in the extensive dragonfly
literature of Eurasia, especially in systematic catalogues of world dragonflies (e.g.
Davies & Tobin, 1985, p. 62; Tsuda, 1991, p. 132; Bridges, 1994, p. VIII.18;
Steinmann, 1997, p. 255), in all international Odonata journals (e.g. the International
Journal of Odonatology; Odonatologica), in field guides and red lists as well as in
numerous odonatological books and papers dealing with biology, ecology and
zoogeography, in regional and national check lists and in identification keys. There
is a minority of central and eastern European authors who have followed Buchholz
and use C. aeneaturfosa to denote the species under the Linnean no. 769; they apply
the name C. aenea to the taxon represented by specimen no. 768. At present, only
Hungarian authors depart from the prevailing usage.

6. In order to maintain the broad agreement on the retention of the use of the
names C. aenea and S. flavomaculata we propose that the Commission should set
aside Fraser’s (1956) lectotype designation for Libellula aenea, and designate instead
the female specimen in Linnaeus’s no. 769.

7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to use its plenary power to set aside all type fixations for the nominal species
aenea Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Libellula aenea, and to
designate the female specimen no. 769 in the collection of the Linnean Society
of London as the lectotype;

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) aenea Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Libellula aenea and as

defined by the lectotype designated in (1) above;

274 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003

(b) flavomaculata Vander Linden, 1825, as published in the binomen Libellula
flavomaculata and as defined by Linnean specimen no. 768 described in
paras. | and 2 above.

References.

Bridges, C.A. 1994. Catalogue of the family-group, genus-group and species-group names of the
Odonata of the world. Ed. 3. xlvi, 905 pp. Bridges, Urbana/IIlinois.

Buchholz, K.F. 1967. Odonata. Jn Illes, J. (Ed.), Limnofauna Europaea. 474 pp. G. Fischer,
Jena.

Charpentier, T. de. 1840. Libellulinae Europaeae descriptae ac depictae. 180 pp., pls. I-XLVIII.
Voss, Leipzig.

Davies, D.A.L. & Tobin, P. 1985. The dragonflies of the world: a systematic list of the extant
species of Odonata, vol. 2. Anisoptera. SIO Rapid Communications, Supplements, 5: i-xi,
1-151.

Forster, F. 1902. Ueber palaearctische Libellen. Mitteilingen des Badischen Zoologischen
Vereins, Karlsruhe, 15: 69-81.

Fraser, F.C. 1956. Name proposed for Cordulia aenea (Linnaeus, 1746, no. 769 nec 768)
(Odon., Corduliidae). The Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine, 92: 20-21.

Hagen, H.A. 1840. Synonymia libellularum Europaearum. 41 pp. Dissertation Academia
Albertina, Dalkowski, KGnigsberg.

Jurzitza, G. 1969. Libellenfunde aus der Umgebung von Gifhorn (ein Beitrag zur Odonaten-
fauna Niedersachsens). Entomologische Zeitschrift, 79: 189-196.

Linnaeus, C. 1746. Fauna Svecica, sistens animalia Svecie Regni: quadrupedia, aves, amphibia,
pisces, insecta, vermes, distributa per classes et ordines, genera et species; cum differentiis
specierum, synonymis autorum, nominibus incolarum, locis habitationum, descriptionibus
insectorum. Ed. 1. xxviii, 411 pp., pls. 1-2. C. Wishoff, Lugduno, Batavorum.

Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae.

Linnaeus, C. 1767. Systema Naturae, Ed. 12, vol. 1, part 2. Pp. 533-1327, Neuroptera: 901-906.
Salvi, Holmiae.

Longfield, C. 1957. Answer to the name proposed by F.C. Fraser for Cordulia aenea (L.)
(Odonata, Corduliidae). The Entomologist's Monthly Magazine, 93: 13.

McLachlan, R. 1898. What is Libellula aenea, Linné?: a study in nomenclature. The
Entomologist's Monthly Magazine, 9: 228-230.

Raius, J. 1710. Historia insectorum. xi, 400 pp. Churchill, London.

Roésel von Rosenhof, A.J. 1749. Insecten-Belustigung. Zweyter Theil. 60 pp. Fleischmann,
Nurnberg. 3

Schmidt, E. 1978. Odonata. Jn Illies, J. (Ed.), Limnofauna Europaea. Second revised and
enlarged edition. Pp. 274-279. Fischer; Stuttgart & New York.

Selys Longchamps, E. de. 1840. Monographie des Libellulidées d'Europe. 220 pp., pls. I-IV.
Roret, Paris & Bruxelles.

Selys Longchamps, E. de. (avec la collaboration de Hagen, H.A.). 1850. Revue des Odonates ou
Libellules d’Europe. Mémoires de la Société royale des Sciences de Liége, 6: 1-xxii, 1408.

Steinmann, H. 1997. World catalogue of Odonata, vol. 2: Anisoptera. Jn Wermuth, H. & M.
Fischer (Eds.), Das Tierreich. Teilband 111. xiv, 636 pp. De Gruyter, Berlin & New York.

Tsuda, S. 1991. A distributional list of world Odonata, 1991. 362 pp. Tsuda, Osaka.

Vander Linden, P.L. 1825. Monographiae libellulinarum Europaearum specimen. 42 pp. Frank,
Brussels.

Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 59: 233.

Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003 ° 275

Case 3093

NEMONYCHIDAE Bedel, November 1882 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed
precedence over CIMBERIDIDAE Gozis, March 1882, and Cimberis
Gozis, 1881: proposed conservation of usage

Christopher H.C. Lyal

Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road,
London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: chel@nhm.ac.uk)

M.A. Alonso-Zarazaga

Depto. de Biodiversidad y Biologia Evolutiva, Museo Nacional de Ciencias
Naturales (CSIC), José Gutiérrez Abascal 2, E-28006 Madrid, Spain
(e-mail: zarazaga@mncn.csic.es)

Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to
conserve the usage of the weevil (CURCULIONOIDEA) family name NEMONYCHIDAE Bedel,
1882 (November) by giving it precedence over the senior name CIMBERIDIDAE Gozis,
1882 (March). In addition, it is proposed that current usage of the generic name
Cimberis Gozis, 1881 is conserved by validating Kuschel’s (1959) designation of
Rhinomacer attelaboides Fabricius, 1787 as its type species.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; CURCULIONIDAE; NEMONYCHIDAE; CIMBERIDIDAE;
Cimberis; Nemonyx; Rhinomacer attelaboides; Rhinomacer lepturoides.

1. The generic name Rhinomacer Geoffroy, 1762 has been variously applied to
species of two unrelated families of Coleoptera, causing grave confusion. Deter-
mining the correct application of Rhinomacer is a necessary prerequisite to dealing
with the family-group names involved. The genus Rhinomacer was described by
Geoffroy, 1762 (p. 269). He included eleven species that were described but, since
the work was not binominal these were not given single specific names. In one
case, he included a reference to a binomen, Attelabus coryli Linnaeus, 1758, but as
he did not cite this name, the species is unavailable as type species. Gozis (1881, p.
cxii) designated ‘Rhinomacer violaceus Scopoli (= betuli Fabricius)’ as type species
but, again, as neither name was cited by Geoffroy, they cannot be used. Geoffroy’s
work was suppressed for all nomenclatural purposes (Opinion 228, 1954) but,
following a later examination of generic names (Kerzhner, 1991), Rhinomacer
Geoffroy 1762 was placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology (Opinion 1754, 1994), being suppressed for priority but not for
homonymy.

2. A use of Rhinomacer Geoffroy is to be found in Miller (1764, p. xii), with no
species included. Kerzhner (1991, p. 124) considered Rhinomacer Geoffroy in Miller
to be available from this publication, but not with the type species designated by
Gozis (1881, p. cxil), since neither name given by Gozis was included. Later, Miller

276 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003

(1776, p. 90) included 15 available species by name. One of these, Rhinomacer coryli
Miller, 1776 (a junior synonym of Curculio nitens Scopoli, 1763), was designated as
type species by Silfverberg (1978, p. 118). Since Curculio nitens Scopoli is the valid
name of the type species of Atte/abus Linnaeus, 1758, Rhinomacer Miller, 1776 (not
Geoffroy) is a subjective synonym of Aftelabus Linnaeus, 1758. Kerzhner (1991,
p. 124) believed this designation to be invalid, since Rhinomacer coryli Miller is not
a nominal species but a misidentification of Attelabus coryli Linnaeus, 1758.
However, taking this as a deliberate use of a misidentification under the Code (see
Articles 69.2.4 and 70.4.2) Silfverberg’s reasoning can be accepted. Miller (1776)
made no reference to earlier uses of the name, and it cannot be assumed that he was
referring to Rhinomacer Geoffroy. Even if he was, since Rhinomacer Geoffroy is
suppressed for the Principle of Priority, it cannot take precedence over Rhinomacer
Muller, although the latter name is preoccupied by Rhinomacer Geoffroy.

3. Fabricius (1781, p. 199) described a new genus Rhinomacer, including a single
species, Rhinomacer curculioides Fabricius, 1781, which is the type species by
monotypy. No reference was made to earlier uses of the name, and it cannot be
assumed that he was referring to Rhinomacer Geoffroy or Rhinomacer Miller.
Fabricius’s genus is a junior homonym of Rhinomacer Geoffroy, 1762, and is
currently a synonym of Mycterus Clairville, 1798 in the family MyCTERIDAE
Blanchard, 1845.

4. Fabricius (1787, p. 123) added a second species to his genus Rhinomacer, namely
R. attelaboides Fabricius, 1787. Rhinomacer Fabricius, 1787 is a redescription of
Rhinomacer Fabricius, 1781. Fabricius subsequently (1801, p. 429) described a third
species, Rhinomacer lepturoides Fabricius (now in Nemonyx Redtenbacher, 1845 (p.
96), where it is type species by monotypy on p. 152). A fourth species, Rhinomacer
varius Fabricius (1798, p. 164) has not been mentioned by other authors, and is
incertae sedis; it will not be mentioned again in this paper.

5. Olivier (1807, pp. 450, 457) placed Rhinomacer curculioides Fabricius (the type
species of Rhinomacer Fabricius, 1781) in the genus Mycterus. He noted that the
genus originally included only the mycterid, but that Fabricius had subsequently
included two non-congeneric species (both are now recognised as NEMONYCHIDAE
Bedel, 1882 (p. 3). Olivier chose to use the name Rhinomacer (Olivier, 1807, p. 459)
exclusively for the two nemonychid species Rinomacer attelaboides Fabricius, 1787
(p. 123) and Rhinomacer lepturoides Fabricius, 1801 (p. 429). Olivier thus mis-
identified Fabricius’s genus, since there is no clear evidence that he was creating a new
genus.

6. In 1823 (col. 1136), Schoenherr designated the nominal species Rhinomacer
attelaboides Fabricius, 1787 as the type species for “Rhinomacer Fabr. Oliv.”. He also
created the family name RHINOMACERIDES, used by later authors for a genus
Rhinomacer including R. attelaboides but not R. curculioides. It is evident that
Schoenherr was using Olivier’s concept of the genus, not that of Fabricius. Shuckard
(1840, p. 53) used “RHINOMACERIDAE Shuck.’ for Rhinomacer Fabricius (containing
attelaboides). Schoenherr’s use was followed by Thomson (1859, p. 127), who
changed the family name ending to RHINOMACERINA, cited Geoffroy as author of
the genus, and stated the type species to be R. attelaboides. The family name
RHINOMACERIDES Schoenherr, 1823 is unavailable, being based on a misidentified type
genus.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003 277

7. In a general discussion of the different genera named Rhinomacer and of
Fabricius’s muddling nomenclatural procedures, Gozis (1881, p. cxi1) proposed the
new generic name Cimberis to replace Rhinomacer of Fabricius, 1787, not mentioning
Olivier. No species is strictly mentioned in his treatment in connection with Cimberis,
although he noted Fabricius’s (1787) inclusion of R. attelaboides in Rhinomacer.
Rhinomacer Fabricius, 1787 is nomenclaturally identical with Rhinomacer Fabricius,
1781. Therefore, Cimberis is a junior synonym of Rhinomacer Fabricius, 1781 and
should be included in the synonymy of Mycterus Clairville, 1798 in MyCTERIDAE as an
unnecessary replacement name. However, it has never been used in this sense, always
being considered a member of the CIMBERIDIDAE Of NEMONYCHIDAE.

8. The family name CIMBERIDAE (correctly CIMBERIDIDAE:; see Kuschel, 1959) was
proposed by Gozis (1882, p. 58) as a replacement name for RHINOMACERIDAE of
authors. Strictly speaking, this name is a synonym of MYCTERIDAE Blanchard, 1845.
However, it has been used in CURCULIONOIDEA either as a subfamily of NEMONYCHIDAE
or as a family of its own, usually wrongly attributed to Bradley (1930, p. 261), which
is just a later use.

9. The family-group name RHINOMACERINI continued to be used for a group
including Nemonyx (e.g. Voss, 1931, p. 162), and Rhinomacer for a genus including
attelaboides (e.g. Voss, 1932, p. 12). Anderson (1947, p. 515), followed by Hatch
(1971, p. 335), correctly pointed out that Rhinomacer Fabricius, 1781 was a pythid
(mycterid), but incorrectly retained Cimberis and CIMBERIDAE.

10. O’Brien & Wibmer (1982, p. 18) correctly identified Cimberis Gozis, 1881 as a
pythid (presently MycTERIDAE), following the logic expressed in paragraph 6 above.
O’Brien & Wibmer (1982, p. 18) proposed the new name Neocimberis as a
replacement name for the concept of Cimberis sensu auctt. in NEMONYCHIDAE and
designated as type species Rhinomacer attelaboides Fabricius, 1787. However,
Neocimberis is unavailable since, although replacement names can be proposed for
available homonymic names, misidentified genera must be described as new and
satisfy the provisions of Article 13 of the Code. Cimberis auctt. is a misidentification,
and Neocimberis O’Brien & Wibmer lacks a description (Article 13.1.1) or a reference
to such (Article 13.1.2). O’Brien & Wibmer (1982, p. 18) replaced cIMBERINI and
RHINOMACERINI with the new name NEOCIMBERINI. This is also unavailable, since its
type genus is unavailable.

11. Kuschel (1959, p. 234) cited as type species for Cimberis Gozis the nominal
species Rhinomacer attelaboides Fabricius, 1787. Later, he (1989, pp. 132-133)
suggested that (1) Rhinomacer Olivier, 1807 was, as a deliberate change from
Fabricius’s concept, nomenclaturally distinct, and applicable only to nemonychid
weevils; (2) Cimberis Gozis had been proposed specifically and only for Rhinomacer
attelaboides. Kuschel (1989) concludes: ‘as a result, the author of Rhinomacer
auctorum, or of authors, or of Fabricius, 1787 is a matter of course Olivier (1807).
The name Cimberis is legitimate and valid for the nemonychid genus because it was
proposed to replace Rhinomacer ‘Fabricius 1787’, which equals ‘of authors’, which
equals Olivier, 1807, and because of a direct reference to R. attelaboides Fabricius.’
This conclusion contravenes the Code dispositions, as shown above.

12. As shown in the previous paragraphs, Rhinomacer attelaboides Fabricius, 1787,
a member of NEMONYCHIDAE OF CIMBERIDIDAE, is not included in any valid genus.
Despite O’Brien & Wibmer’s actions, the genus name used almost exclusively since

278 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003

Gozis (1881) is Cimberis and changing this situation would be against the stability of
nomenclature. Cimberis has never been related to PYTHIDAE (MYCTERIDAE) Other than
in O’Brien & Wibmer (1982).

13. The family name CIMBERIDIDAE Gozis, 1882 was published on the Ist March
while NEMONYCHIDAE Bedel, 1882 was published in November (to be dated on the
30th). If our proposal to conserve Cimberis Gozis in its current sense is accepted,
CIMBERIDIDAE would have precedence over NEMONYCHIDAE. This procedure
would upset the current nomenclature and so we propose that NEMONYCHIDAE
should be given precedence over CIMBERIDIDAE. The family has been revised world-
wide by Kuschel (1954, 1959, 1989, 1993, 1994) and he has used the name
NEMONYCHIDAE.

14. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to use its plenary power:

(a) to rule that the family-group name NEMONYCHIDAE Bedel, 1882 (November)
and other family-group names based on Nemonyx Redtenbacher, 1845 are
to be given precedence over CIMBERIDIDAE Gozis, 1882 (March) and other
family-group names based on Cimberis Gozis, 1881 whenever their type
genera are placed in the same family-group taxon;

(b) to set aside all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus
Cimberis Gozis, 1881 prior to the designation made by Kuschel (1959) of
Rhinomacer attelaboides Fabricius, 1787;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names:

(a) Cimberis Gozis, 1881 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent
designation by Kuschel (1959) Rhinomacer attelaboides Fabricius, 1787;

(b) Nemonyx Redtenbacher, 1845 (gender: masculine), type species by
monotypy Rhinomacer lepturoides Fabricius, 1801;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) attelaboides Fabricius, 1787, as published in the binomen Rhinomacer
attelaboides (specific name of the type species of Cimberis Gozis, 1881);
(b) lepturoides Fabricius, 1801, as published in the binomen Rhinomacer
lepturoides (specific name of the type species of Nemonyx Redtenbacher,

1845);

to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the following

names:

(a) CIMBERIDIDAE Gozis, 1882, type genus Cimberis Gozis, 1881, with the
endorsement that it and other family-group names based on Cimberis are
not to be given priority over NEMONYCHIDAE Bedel, 1882 and other
family-group names based on Nemonyx Redtenbacher, 1845 whenever
their type genera are placed in the same family-group taxon;

(b) NEMONYCHIDAE Bedel, 1882, type genus Nemonyx Redtenbacher, 1845, with
the endorsement that it and other family-group names based on Nemonyx
Redtenbacher, 1845 are to be given precedence Over CIMBERIDIDAE Gozis,
1882 and other family-group names based on Cimberis Gozis, 1881
whenever their type genera are placed in the same family-group taxon:

to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in

Zoology the following names:

a

s

—
Nn

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003 279

(a) Rhinomacer Fabricius, 1781 (a junior homonym of Rhinomacer Geoffroy,
1762);
(b) Neocimberis O’Brien & Wibmer, 1982 (a nomen nudum);
(6) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in
Zoology the following names:
(a) RHINOMACERIDES Schoenherr, 1823 (based on a misidentified type genus);
(b) CIMBERIDAE Gozis, 1882 (an original incorrect spelling for CIMBERIDIDAE).

Acknowledgement
We are very grateful for the assistance and advice of Mr Richard Thompson, The
Natural History Museum, London.

References

Anderson, W.H. 1947. Larvae of some genera of Anthribidae. Annals of the Entomological
Society of America, 40: 489-517.

Bedel, L. 1882. Faune des Coléoptéres du Bassin de la Seine, vol. 6. Rhynchophora. Annales
de la Société entomologique de France, (6)2(3), Publication Hors Série: 1-16.

Bradley, J.C. 1930. The names of certain Rhynchophora. Bulletin of the Brooklyn Entomo-
logical Society, 25(5): 259-262.

Fabricius, J.C. 1781. Species insectorum exhibentes eorum differentias specificas, synonyma
auctorum, loca natalia, metamorphosin adiectis observationibus, descriptionibus, vol. 1. viii,
552 pp. Hamburgii et Kilonti, Bohn.

Fabricius, J.C. 1787. Mantissa insectorum sistens eorum species nuper detectas adiectis
characteribus genericis, differentiis specificis, emendationibus, observationibus, vol. 1. xx,
348 pp. Proft, Hafniae.

Fabricius, J.C. 1798. Supplementum Entomologiae Systematicae. 572 pp. Proft et Storch,
Hafniae.

Fabricius, J.C. 1801. Systema eleutheratorum secundum ordines, genera, species: adiectis
synonimis, locis, observationibus, descriptionibus, vol. 2. 687 pp. Bibliopoli Academici
Novi, Kiliae.

Geoffroy, E.L. 1762. Histoire abrégée des insectes qui se trouvent aux environs de Paris; dans
laquelle ces animaux sont rangés suivant un ordre méthodique, vol. 1. xxvii, 523 pp., 10 pls.
Durand, Paris.

Gozis, M. des. 1881. Quelques rectifications synonymiques touchant différents genres et especes
de Coleopteres frangais (Ire partie). Annales de la Société entomologique de France,
(6)1(3)(Bulletin): exii—exiii.

Gozis, M. des. 1882. Synopsis du genre Tropideres Schoenherr et description dune espece
nouvelle. Feuille des Jeunes Naturalistes, 12(137): 58-59.

Hatch, M.H. 1971. The beetles of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Publications
in Biology, 16: 1-xiv, 1-662.

Kerzhner, I.M. 1991. Histoire abrégée des insectes qui se trouvent aux environs de Paris
(Geoffroy, 1762): proposed conservation of some generic names (Crustacea and Insecta).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 48(2): 107-134.

Kuschel, G. 1954. La familia Nemonychidae en la region neotropical. Revista Chilena de
Historia Natural, 54: 97-126.

Kuschel, G. 1959. Nemonychidae, Belidae y Oxycorynidae de la fauna chilena, con algunas
consideraciones biogeograficas. Investigaciones Zoolégicas Chilenas, 5: 229-271.

Kuschel, G. 1989. The Nearctic Nemonychidae (Coleoptera: Curculionoidea). Entomologica
Scandinavica, 20: 121-171.

Kuschel, G. 1993. The Palaearctic Nemonychidae (Coleoptera: Curculionoidea). Annales de la
Société entomologique de France, (n.s.)29(1): 23-46.

Kuschel, G. 1994. Nemonychidae of Australia, New Guinea and New Caledonia. In
Zimmerman, E.C. (Ed.), Australian Weevils, 1: 563-637.

280 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003

Miiller, O.F. 1764. Fauna Insectorum Fridrichsdalina, sive methodica descriptio insectorum agri
fridrichsdalensis, cum characteribus genericis et specificis, nominibus trivialibus, locis
natalibus, iconibus allegatis, novisque pluribus speciebus additis. xxiv, 96 pp. lo. Fridr.
Gleditschii, Hafniae et Lipsiae.

Miiller, O.F. 1776. Zoologia Danicae prodromus, seu animalium Daniae et Norvegiae indige-
narum .characteres, nomina, et synonyma imprimis popularium. 32, 282 pp. Hallager,
Hafniae.

O’Brien, C.W. & Wibmer, G.J. 1982. Annotated checklist of the weevils (Curculionidae sensu
lato) of North America, Central America, and the West Indies (Coleoptera: Curculionoi-
dea). Memoirs of the American Entomological Institute, 34: 11x, 1-382.

Olivier, A.G. 1807. Entomologie, ou Histoire Naturelle des Insectes, avec leurs caractéres
génériques et spécifiques, leur description, leur synonymie, et leur figure enluminée.
Coléoptéres, vol. 5. 612 pp. Desray, Paris.

Schoenherr, C.J. 1823. Curculionides [Tabula synoptica familiae Curculionidum]. /sis von
Oken, 1823(10): cols. 1132-1146.

Shuckard, W.E. 1840. The British Coleoptera delineated consisting of figures of all the genera of
British Beetles drawn in outline by W. Spry, M.E.S. vii, 83 pp.. 8 pls. Bohn, London.

Silfverberg, H. 1978. The coleopteran genera of Miiller 1764. Notulae Entomologicae, 58:
117-119.

Thomson, C.G. 1859. Skandinaviens Coleoptera, synoptiskt bearbetade, vol. 1. 10, 290 pp.
Berlingska Boktryckeriet, Lund. ;

Voss, E. 1931. Monographie der Rhynchitinen—Tribus Rhinomacerini und Rhinorhynchini. II.
Teil der Monographie der Rhynchitinae—Pterocolinae. Entomologische Blatter, 27(4):
162-167.

Voss, E. 1932. Monographie der Rhynchitinen—Tribus Rhinomacerini und Rhinorhynchini. I.
Teil der Monographie der Rhynchitinae—Pterocolinae. Entomologische Blatter, 28(1):
11-18.

Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 55: 137.

Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin: they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003 281

Case 3272

Microsaurus Dejean, 1833 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed
conservation of usage by designation of Staphylinus ochripennis
Menétriés, 1832 as the type species

Ales Smetana

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Central Experimental Farm, K.W.
Neatby Bldg., Ottawa, ON KIA 0C6, Canada (e-mail: smetanaa@agr.gc.ca)

Abstract. The purpose of this application, in relation to Article 70 of the Code, is to
conserve the widespread usage of the generic name Microsaurus Dejean, 1833 for a
group of rove beetles (family sTAPHYLINIDAE) by designating Staphylinus ochripennis
Méneéetriés, 1832 as the type species of Microsaurus in place of Staphylinus lateralis
Gravenhorst, 1802. Members of the genus Microsaurus are north temperate in
distribution, with the majority of species occurring in the Palaearctic Region. The
conservation of the long-standing usage of Microsaurus 1s required for the upcoming
publication of the second volume of The Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera.
Quedius fissus, Q. latinus, Q. lateralis, O. scheerpeltzi (with synonym Q. cyprinus) and
QO. suramensis (with synonym Q. grouziacus) are transferred from Microsaurus to
Raphirus Stephens, 1829.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; sSTAPHYLINIDAE; Microsaurus;
Microsaurus ochripennis; rove beetles; Holarctic; Palaearctic.

1. Dejean (1833, p. 61) introduced the generic name Microsaurus for a group of
rove beetles (family sTAPHYLINIDAE) and included 11 available specific names, of
which only three (Staphylinus lateralis Gravenhorst, 1802, Staphylinus ochripennis
Meénetriés, 1832 (p. 145) and Staphylinus scitus Gravenhorst, 1806) currently remain
in Microsaurus.

2. Westwood (1838, p. 16) subsequently designated one of the originally included
species, Staphylinus lateralis Gravenhorst, 1802, as the type species of Microsaurus.

3. Stephens (1829, p. 23) established the rove beetle genus Raphirus, and Mulsant
& Rey (1876, p. 616) established the rove beetle genus Sauridus. Both of these genera
were subsequently included, together with Microsaurus, as subgenera of Quedius
Stephens, 1829. Traditionally these three subgenera were distinguished by relative eye
size until Smetana (1971, p. 184), showing this character to be inadequate for
distinguishing between the three subgenera when considered in isolation from other
characters, synonymized Sauridus with Raphirus.

4. Smetana (1988, p. 183) pointed out that all Microsaurus have two setiferous
punctures posteromediad of the posterior frontal puncture on the head, whereas all
Raphirus have only one setiferous puncture at this location. This character state is a
reliable distinguishing character of the two subgenera irrespective of the size of the
eyes (see Smetana, 1997, p. 51).

282

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003

5. Since Staphylinus lateralis Gravenhorst, 1802 (p. 35), the type species of
Microsaurus, has only one setiferous puncture in the location on the head (see para.
4 above), it has to be transferred to Raphirus, along with the following members of
the Quedius lateralis-species group. These are: Q. fissus Gridelli, 1938, Q. latinus
Gridelli, 1938, QO. scheerpeltzi Gridelli, 1938 (with its synonym Q. cyprinus Franz,
1987) and QO. suramensis Eppelsheim, 1880 (with its synonym Q. grouziacus Coiffait,
1966).

6. If the validly designated type species of Microsaurus, Staphylinus lateralis,
remains the type species of Microsaurus, Microsaurus would become a junior
synonym of Raphirus and the name Ediquus Mulsant & Rey, 1876 would replace
Microsaurus. This would cause great confusion as the name Ediquus Mulsant & Rey,
1876 has not been used as a valid name for over 40 years and has a homonym Ediquus
Reitter, 1887 (Coleoptera) (although this was replaced by the name Farus by
Blackwelder in 1952, p. 165). Both Microsaurus and Raphirus have a long history of
use in their current meaning, with each name being used by well over 20 authors since
they were introduced (see Herman, 2001, pp. 3089-3090, for details) and these
changes would seriously affect the nomenclatural stability of the group.

7. The International Commision on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to use its plenary power to set aside all previous fixations of type species for
the nominal genus Microsaurus Dejean, 1833 and to designate Staphylinus
ochripennis Ménétriés, 1832 as the type species;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name
Microsaurus Dejean, 1833 (gender: masculine), type species Staphylinus
ochripennis Ménétriés, 1832 as ruled in (1) above;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name ochripennis
Menétriés, 1832, as published in the binomen Staphylinus ochripennis (specific
name of the type species of Microsaurus Dejean, 1833).

Acknowledgement
I thank Lee H. Herman (American Museum of Natural History, New York) for
reviewing an earlier draft of this paper. ~

References

Blackwelder, R.E. 1952. The generic names of the beetle family Staphylinidae, with an essay on
genotypy. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 200: 1483.

Coiffait, H. 1966. Quedius nouveaux. 5e note sur le genre Quedius. Bulletin de la Société
d Histoire Naturelle de Toulouse, 105: 44-54.

Dejean, P.F.M.A. 1833. Catalogue des Coléoptéres de la collection de M. le Comte Dejean. 176
pp. Méquignon-Marvis, Paris.

Eppelsheim, E. 1880. Ueber vicarirende Fligeldeckenfarbung bei den Quedien. Mitteilungen
der Schweizerischen Entomologischen Gesellschaft, 5: 577-586.

Franz, H. 1987. Beitrag zur Koleopterenfauna Cyperns. Sitzungsberichte der Osterreichischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, Mathematisch-naturwissenschaftliche Klasse, Abteilung 1,
196: 67-87.

Gravenhorst, J.L.C. 1802. Coleoptera Microptera Brunsvicensia . . . \xvi, 207 pp. Reichard,
Brunsvigae.

Grayenhorst, J.L.C. 1806. Monographia Coleopterorum Micropterorum. 248 pp. Dieterich,
Gottingae.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003 283

Gridelli, E. 1938. Studi sul genere Quedius Steph. Bolletino della Societa Entomologica Italiana,
70: 6-19.

Herman, L. 2001. Catalog of the Staphylinidae (Insecta: Coleoptera). 1758 to the end of the
second millennium. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 265: 14218.

Menétriés, E. 1832. Catalogue raisonné des objets de zoologie recueillis dans un voyage au
Caucase .. . 271, xxx, 1v pp. L’Académie Impériale des Sciences, St. Petersbourg.

Mulsant, E. & Rey, C. 1876. Tribu des brévipennes. [Staphyliniens]. Annales de la Société
d' Agriculture, Histoire Naturelle et Arts utiles de Lyon, (4)8: 145-856.

Reitter, E. 1887. Insecta in itinere Cl. N. Przewalskii in Asia centrali novissime lecta. VI.
Clavicornia, Lamellicornia et Serricornia. Horae Societatis Entomologicae Rossicae, 21:
201-234.

Smetana, A. 1971. Revision of the tribe Quediini of America North of Mexico (Coleoptera:
Staphylinidae). Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada, 79: i-vi, 1-303.

Smetana, A. 1988. Revision of the tribes Quediini and Atanygnathini. Part II. The Himalayan
region (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae). Quaestiones Entomologicae, 24: 163- 464.

Smetana, A. 1997. Contributions to the knowledge of the Quediina (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae,
Staphylinini) of China. Part 6. Genus Quedius Stephens, 1829. Subgenus Microsaurus
Dejean, 1833. Section 5. Bulletin of the National Science Museum, (A)23: 51-68.

Stephens, J.F. 1829. The nomenclature of British insects; being a compendious list . . . 68 pp.
Baldwin & Cradock, London.

Westwood, J.O. 1838. Synopsis of the genera of British insects. Pp. 1-48 in Westwood, J.O.
(Ed.), An introduction to the modern classification . . . Longman, Orme, Brown, Green &
Longman, London.

Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 60: 94.

Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).

284 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003

Case 3274

Hydroporus foveolatus Heer, 1839 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed
precedence of the specific name over Hydroporus nivalis Heer, 1839

Helena V. Shaverdo

Institute of Zoology, National Academy of Sciences of Belarus,
Academicheska 27, 220072 Minsk, Belarus (e-mail: shaverdo@mail.ru )

Manfred A. Jach

Naturhistorisches Museum, Burgring 7, 1014 Wien, Austria (e-mail:
manfred.jaech@nhm-wien.ac.at)

Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 23.9.3 and 81.2.3 of the
Code, is to conserve the specific name of Hydroporus foveolatus Heer, 1839 for a
species of diving beetle (family DytTIscIDAE) from the mountains of central and
western Europe, by giving it precedence over the senior synonym Hydroporus nivalis
Heer, 1839. The two names had long been treated as synonyms until they were
reconsidered to represent distinct species. For more than 100 years the name
H. foveolatus has been used for the species described as H. nivalis. However, recent
examination of their type specimens has confirmed that they are synonyms.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; pDytTisciIpAE; Hydroporus;
Hydroporus foveolatus; Hydroporus nivalis; Alps; Europe.

1. Heer (1839, p. 157) described two species of diving beetle, Hydroporus nivalis
(species no. 17) and H. foveolatus (species no. 18) (family pytiscipAE), which were
collected at several localities (Bergliseeli, Seeloch, Klausen, Gotthardseeli and
Prunellenalp) in the Swiss Alps.

2. The two nominal species were considered to be synonyms by Schaum (1844,
p. 197). Acting as First Reviser, he later used the name Hydroporus nivalis Heer, 1839
as the valid name for the taxon (Schaum, 1845, p. 406). For almost 50 years
afterwards H. foveolatus Heer, 1839 was treated as a junior synonym of H. nivalis
(e.g. Redtenbacher, 1858, p. 91; Gemminger & Harold, 1868, p. 437; Schaum, 1868,
p. 67; Sahlberg, 1875, p. 150; Sharp, 1882, p. 469 and Seidlitz, 1887, pp. 73, 74).

3. Ganglbauer (1892, pp. 475, 476) resurrected the name H. foveolatus for the
species described by Heer (1839) as H. nivalis and used the name H. nivalis for
another species including among its synonyms H. sabaudus Fauvel, 1865 and H.
alticola Sharp, 1882. Uncritical use of the names H. foveolatus and H. nivalis followed
the interpretation established by Ganglbauer for more than a century (see Kolbe,
1899, p. 24; Zimmermann, 1920, pp. 87, 94; 1931, pp. 47, 48; Guignot, 1931-1933,
pp. 349, 376; 1947, pp. 99, 104; Balfour-Browne, 1940, p. 340; Bertrand, 1949, p. 26;
Zaitzev, 1953, p. 170; Schaeflein, 1971, p. 39; Galewski, 1971, pp. 26, 30; Franciscolo,
1979, pp. 331, 365; Angelini, 1984, pp. 62, 67; Guéorguiev, 1987, p. 70; Schaeflein &
Wewalka, 1982, p. 8 and Nilsson, 2001, p. 163).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003 285

4. The synonymy of Hydroporus foveolatus and H. nivalis recognized by Schaum
(1844, p. 197; 1845, p. 406) has been confirmed by recent examination of the type
material and lectotypes of the two nominal species were designated by Shaverdo
(2003, in press). The species that has been regarded as H. nivalis since Ganglbauer
(1892) is currently known as H. sabaudus Fauvel, 1865. Comparison of the type
specimens of H. sabaudus and its synonym H. alticola has confirmed H. sabaudus as
a valid species (see Shaverdo, 2003). Accordingly, the species known for over 100
years as H. foveolatus sensu Ganglbauer (1892) would have to bear the name
H. nivalis. These taxa are morphologically and ecologically very similar and often
share the same habitat (high altitude lakes, pools and ditches). Using the name
H. nivalis in the original sense would cause considerable confusion and instability in
nomenclature and ecology. We therefore propose, in accordance with Articles 23.9.3
and 81.2.3, that the specific name H. foveolatus be given precedence over the name
H. nivalis whenever the two are considered to be synonyms.

5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to use its plenary power to give the name foveolatus Heer, 1839, as published

in the binomen Hydroporus foveolatus, precedence over the name nivalis Heer,
1839, as published in the binomen Hydroporus nivalis, whenever the two are
considered to be synonyms;

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:

(a) foveolatus Heer, 1839, as published in the binomen Hydroporus foveolatus,
with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the name nivalis
Heer, 1839, as published in the binomen Hydroporus nivalis, whenever the
two are considered to be synonyms;

(b) nivalis Heer, 1839, as published in the binomen Hydroporus nivalis, with the
endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the name foveolatus
Heer, 1839, as published in the binomen Hydroporus foveolatus, whenever
the two are considered to be synonyms.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Dr S. Bieri (Eidgendssische Technische Hochschule Ziirich), Dr
D. Drugmand (Institut Royal des Sciences naturelles de Belgique, Bruxelles), Dr M.
Brendell and S. Shute (The Natural History Museum, London) for the opportunity to
study type material and to Dr A.N. Nilsson for his advice. The study was supported
in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada in
the form of a 2001 NATO Science Fellowship and an operating research grant
(no. A0428 to Dr R.E. Roughley).

References

Angelini, F. 1984. Catalogo Topografico dei Coleoptera Haliplidae, Hygrobiidae, Dytiscidae e
Gyrinidae d'Italia. Memorie della Societa Entomologica Italiana, 61(A): 45-126.

Balfour-Browne, F. 1940. British water beetles, vol. 1. 375 pp., 5 pls. Ray Society, London.

Bertrand, H. 1949. Récoltes de coléoptéres aquatiques (Hydrocanthares) dans les Pyrénées;
observations écologiques. Bulletin de la Société Zoologique de France, 74: 24-38.

Fauvel, A. 1865. Enumération des insectes recueillis en Savoie et en Dauphiné (1861-1863) et
descriptions d’espéces nouvelles. Bulletin de la Société Linnéenne de Normandie, 9:
253-321.

286 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003

Franciscolo, M. 1979. Coleoptera, Haliplidae, Hygrobiidae, Gyrinidae, Dytiscidae. Fauna
dTtalia, 14: 1-804.

Galewski, K. 1971. Plywakowate—Dytiscidae. Zeszyt 7. Klucze do oznaczania owadow polski.
Cz19. Chrzszeze—Coleoptera. Seria kluczy Polskie Towarzystwo Entomologiczne, No. 70.
112 pp. Warszawa.

Ganglbauer, L. 1892. Die Kafer von Mitteleuropa. Die Kafer der 6sterreichisch-ungarischen
Monarchie, Deutschlands, der Schweiz, sowie des franzdsischen und italienischen Alpenge-

Gemminger, M. & Harold, E.B. de. 1868. Catalogus coleopterorum hucusque descriptorum
synonymicus et systematicus, vol. 2. Pp. 425-752. Gummi, Monachii.

Guéorguiey, V. 1987. Coleoptera, Hydrocanthares. Fauna Bulgarica, 17: 1-160. [In Bulgarian].

Guignot, F. 1931-1933. Les hydrocanthares de France. 1057 pp. Douladoure, Toulouse.

Guignot, F. 1947. Coléoptéres Hydrocanthares. Faune de France, 48: 1-287.

Heer, O. 1839. Fauna coleopterorum Helvetica, part 1, vol. 2. Pp. 145-360. Orelii, Fuesslini et
Sociorum, Turici.

Kolbe, W. 1899. Beitrage zur schlesischen Kaferfauna. Zeitschrift fiir Entomologie Breslau,
Neue Folge, 24: 23-25.

Nilsson, A.N. 2001. Dytiscidae (Coleoptera). World Catalogue of Insects. 395 pp. Apollo
Books, Stenstrup.

Redtenbacher, L. 1858. Fauna Austriaca. Die Kafer, Ed. 2. |xiv, 1017 pp. Wien.

Sahlberg, J. 1875. Enumeratio coleopterorum carnivororum Fenniae. Notiser ur Sdllskapets
pro Fauna et Flora Fennica Forhandlingar, 14: 41-200.

Schaeflein, H. 1971. Familie 4: Dytiscidae, echte Schwimmkafer. Pp. 16-89 in Freude, H..,
Harde, K.W. & Lohse, G.A. (Eds.), Die Kafer Mitteleuropas, vol. 3. 365 pp. Goecke &
Evers, Krefeld.

Schaeflein, H. & Wewalka, G. 1982. Fam.: Hygrobiidae, Haliplidae, Dytiscidae. Catalogus
Faunae Austriae. Teil xve. 1, 27 pp. Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien.

Schaum, H. 1844. Bemerkungen tiber einige Arten der Gattung Hydroporus. Entomologische
Zeitung, 5(6): 195-199.

Schaum, H. 1845. Entomologische Bemerkungen. Entomologische Zeitung, 6(12): 402-410.

Schaum, H. 1868. Hydroporus nivalis. Pp. 67-68 in Schaum, H. & Kiesenwetter, H. Coleoptera,
Erster Band, Zweite Halfte in Erichson, W.F. (Ed.), Naturgeschichte der Insekten
Deutschlands. 362 pp. Berlin.

Seidlitz, G. 1887. Bestimmungs-tabelle der Dytiscidae und Gyrinidae des europadischen
Faunengebietes. Verhandlungen des Naturforschenden Vereines in Briinn, 25: 3-136.
Sharp, D. 1882. On aquatic carnivorous Coleoptera or Dytiscidae. Scientific Transactions of

the Royal Dublin Society, 2(2): 179-1003.

Shaverdo, H.V. 2003. Revision of the nigrita-group of Hydroporus Clairville, 1806 (Coleoptera:
Dytiscidae). Annalen des Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien, in press.

Zaitzey, F.A. 1953. Nasekomye: zhestkokrylye. Vol. 4. Plavuntsovye 1 vertyachki [Insecta.
Coleoptera: Dytiscidae and Gyrinidae]. Fauna SSSR, Novaia seriia, no. 58. 378 pp.
Akademiya Nauk SSSR, Moskva - Leningrad.

Zimmermann, A. 1920. Dytiscidae, Haliplidae, Hygrobiidae, Amphizoidae. P. 326 in
Schenkling, S. (Ed.), Coleopterorum Catalogus, vol. 4, part 71. Junk, Berlin.

Zimmermann, A. 1931. Monographie der palaarktischen Dytisciden, II]. Hydroporinae (2 Teil).
Koleopterologische Rundschau, 17: 97-159.

Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 60: 94

Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003 287

Case 3286

Thinobius crinifer Smetana, 1959 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed
conservation of the specific name

Michael Schtilke

Rue Ambroise Paré 11, D-13405 Berlin, Germany (e-mail:
mschuelke.berlin@t-online.de)

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve, in relation to Article 23.9.3
of the Code, the specific name Thinobius crinifer Smetana, 1959 for a widespread
Palaearctic species of rove beetle (family sTAPHYLINIDAE). The name is threatened by
the recently discovered synonymy with the largely unused senior name Thinobius
wenckeri Fauvel, 1863 and three senior names whose description is based on
specimens from North America, where the species was apparently introduced.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; sTAPHYLINIDAE; Thinobius;
Thinobius crinifer; rove beetles; Holarctic.

1. The name Thinobius crinifer Smetana, 1959 (p. 271), described from Albania,
was given to a widespread species of rove beetle (family sSTAPHYLINIDAE) that lives on
sand and gravel banks of rivers and streams in large parts of the Palaearctic region.
The species is of ecological and conservation interest. Thinobius crinifer has four
older subjective synonyms.

2. The oldest name Thinobius wenckeri Fauvel, 1863 (p. 41), also described from
Europe (France), was used as the name of a valid species only twice after its original
description in the second half of the 19th century, the last time in 1868 (Gemminger
& Harold, 1868, p. 654). Since the synonymization by Fauvel (1871, p. 164),
Thinobius wenckeri Fauvel, 1863 has been considered either a synonym or an
infrasubspecific form of Thinobius longipennis (Heer, 1841, p. 595). The synonymy of
Thinobius wenckeri Fauvel, 1863 and Thinobius crinifer Smetana, 1959 was estab-
lished by Schtlke & Makranczy (2003), based on an examination of type material.
Since Thinobius wenckeri Fauvel meets the provisions of Article 23.9.1, it has to be
considered a nomen oblitum and Thinobius crinifer Smetana, 1959 a nomen
protectum (Schtlke & Makranczy, 2003).

3. Three other synonyms: Thinobius tardus Notman, 1921 (p. 149), Thinobius
amphibius Notman, 1921 (p. 149) and Thinobius grandicollis Notman, 1921 (p. 150)
were described from North America where the species appears to have been recently
introduced. The synonymy of all the names described by Notman (1921) with
Thinobius crinifer Smetana, 1959 was established by Schtilke & Makranezy (2003)
based on a study of type material. The names have been listed as valid only five times
after their original descriptions in the papers of Scheerpeltz (1933, pp. 1126, 1127),
Herman (1970, pp. 396, 397; 2001, pp. 1738, 1746, 1758), Moore & Legner (1975, pp.
254, 255) and Downie & Arnett (1996, p. 457) without any additional information.
Only one of the references (Downie & Arnett, 1996) includes the species in an

288 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003

identification key. An automatic suppression of all names described by Notman
(1921) is not possible because they do not meet the provisions of Article 23.9.1.

4. In relation to the names published by Notman (1921), an automatic suppression
of Thinobius wenckeri is not possible, because the provisions of Article 23.9.2 of the
Code are not met in the case of T. tardus, T. amphibius and/or T. grandicollis (all
listed as valid only four times during the last five decades).

5. However, Thinobius crinifer Smetana, 1959 was used as the valid name for the
species from the time of its description and has been cited as valid in at least 41
articles by 28 authors in the last 50 years (Schtilke & Makranezy, 2003: the
Commission Secretariat holds these references). Thinobius crinifer Smetana is one of
the most abundant Western Palaearctic species of the genus. The species name has
frequently been used in the European taxonomic, zoogeographic and ecological
literature, as well as in Red Data Lists and other papers dealing with nature
conservation. To preserve continuity of the literature and to stabilize the name for
use this case is submitted to the Commission under Article 23.9.3.

6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to use its plenary power to suppress the following names for the purposes of

the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy:

(a) tardus Notman, 1921, as published in the binomen Thinobius tardus:

(b) amphibius Notman, 1921, as published in the binomen Thinobius amphibius:

(c) grandicollis Notman,: 1921, as published in the binomen Thinobius
grandicollis;

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name crinifer

Smetana, 1959, as published in the binomen Thinobius crinifer;

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in

Zoology the following names:

(a) tardus Notman, 1921, as published in the binomen Thinobius tardus and as
suppressed in (1) above;

(b) amphibius Notman, 1921, as published in the binomen Thinobius
amphibius and as suppressed in (1) above:

(c) grandicollis Notman, 1921, as published in the binomen Thinobius
grandicollis and as suppressed in (1) above;

(d) wenckeri Fauvel, 1863, as published in the binomen Thinobius wenckeri
(a nomen oblitum).

Acknowledgements

I am indebted to the following colleagues who reviewed this paper: L.H. Herman
(New York), G. Makranczy (Lawrence) and V. Assing (Hannover, Germany; and
also for his stylistic improvements of the English manuscript).

References

Downie, N.M. & Arnett, R.H. 1996. The beetles of Northeastern North America, vol. 1. 880 pp.
Sandhall Crane Press, Gainesville.

Fauvel, A. 1863. 53. Thinobius wenckeri, p. 41 in Grenier, A. (Ed.), Catalogue des Coléoptéres
de France et matériaux pour servir a la faune des Coléoptéres francais. Grenier, Paris.

Fauyel, A. 1871. Faune Gallo-rhénane ou descriptions des insectes qui habitent la France, la
Belgique, la Hollande, le Luxembourg, les provinces Rhénanes et le Valais avec tableaux

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003, 289

synoptiques et planches gravées. Bulletin de la Société Linnéenne de Normandie, (2)5:
27-192.

Gemminger, M. & Harold, E.V. 1868. Catalogus Coleopterorum hucusque descriptorum
synonymicus et systematicus, vol. 2. Gummi, Monachi.

Heer, O. 1841. Fauna Coleopterorum Helvetica. Fasc. 3. Orelii, Fuesslini et Sociorum, Turici.

Herman, L.H. 1970. Phylogeny and reclassification of the genera of the rove-beetle subfamily
Oxytelinae of the World (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae). Bulletin of the American Museum of
Natural History, 142(5): 343-454.

Herman, L.H. 2001. Catalog of the Staphylinidae (Insecta: Coleoptera). 1758 to the end of the
second millennium. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 265: 14218.

Moore, I. & Legner, E.F. 1975. A Catalogue of the Staphylinidae of America North of
Mexico (Coleoptera). Division of Agricultural Sciences. University of California. Special
Publication, 3015: 1—514.

Notman, H. 1921. Some genera and species of Coleoptera collected at Westfield, Chautauqua
Co., N.Y. Journal of the New York Entomological Society, 29(3-4): 145-160.

Scheerpeltz, O. 1933. Staphylinidae VII in Schenkling, S. (Ed.), Coleopterorum Catalogus, pars
129.

Smetana, A. 1959. Neue Arten der Gattung Thinobius Kiesw. aus Europa (Col. Staphylinidae).
Casopis Ceskoslovenské Spolecnosti Entomologické, 56(3): 265-275.

Schiilke, M. & Makranczy, G. 2003. On the synonymy of Thinobius crinifer Smetana, 1959
(Coleoptera, Staphylinidae, Oxytelinae). Entomologische Blatter, 98(3): 211-223.

Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 60: 178.

Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).

290 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003

Case 3271

Nematois australis Heydenreich, 1851 (currently Adela australis;
Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed precedence over Tinea aldrovandella
Villers, 1789

Mikhail V. Kozlov

Section of Ecology, University of Turku, 20014 Turku, Finland
(e-mail: mikoz@utu.fi)

Erik J. van Nieukerken

National Museum of Natural History, Naturalis, PO Box 9517, 2300 RA
Leiden, The Netherlands (e-mail: Nieukerken@naturalis.nnm.nl)

Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 23.9.3 and 81.2.3 of the
Code, is to conserve the widely used specific name Adela australis (Heydenreich,
1851) for a common south European fairy moth (family ADELIDAE) by giving it
precedence over the questionable senior synonym Tinea aldrovandella Villers, 1789.
T. aldrovandella was not used after publication until 1980 when it was mentioned as
a possible synonym of A. australis. Since 1980, some, but not all, authors have
accepted this synonymy.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; ADELIDAE; Adela australis; Tinea aldrovandella.

1. Villers (1789, p. 526) described Tinea aldrovandella from Europe. The precise
type locality of this species remains unknown, although it is quite likely that the
type material originated from France as most of the comments by Villers
concern species distributed in that country (Werneburg, 1864). The whereabouts of
Villers’s collection remains unknown (Nielsen, 1985), and the types are most
probably lost. i

2. The identity of Tinea aldrovandella has not been discussed in any subsequent
work. This species belongs to the family ADELIDAE, as indicated by the character
‘antennis longissimis’; the presence of a fascia excludes the genera Nematopogon
Zeller and Cauchas Zeller from consideration. Eight of the 23 species of Adela
Linnaeus and Nemophora Hoffmannsegg occurring in France (according to Leraut,
1997) possess a forewing fascia; in six species among them, the fascia is located in the
middle of the forewing (between 0.5 and 0.6 of forewing length), which corresponds
to the description (‘fascia alba in medio’). The character “alis violaceis’ excludes three
species with a brightly patterned forewing (A. croesella (Scopoli), A. associatella
(Zeller), N. congruella Zeller), so only three species (4. paludicolella Zeller, A.
albicinctella Mann, A. australis Heydenreich) more or less correspond to the original
description. Two of these species (A. paludicolella and A. albicinctella) possess a small
white spot at about 0.7 of the costa; in worn specimens this spot can easily be
overlooked. The character “Alae omneae, subtus fuscae, apice albae’ is difficult to

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003 291

attribute to any of the species mentioned. Therefore, we conclude that the identity
of JT. aldrovandella cannot be established with certainty, although A. australis
(Heydenreich, 1851) seems to be the most plausible candidate.

3. Herrich-Schaeffer (1851, pl. 33, fig. 233) illustrated a male moth under the name
australis. Herrich-Schaeffer’s plates carry only specific names, which are not bino-
minal and therefore not available; the descriptive text (on p. 103) did not appear
until 1854 (see Hemming, 1937, p. 588 for the publication dates of vol. 5 of
Herrich-Schaeffer’s work). Although both the specific name and its application
were due to Herrich-Schaeffer, the name was made available by reference to
Herrich-Schaeffer’s illustration by Heydenreich (1851, p. 131, published in the
combination Nematois australis).

4. The name ‘Tinea aldrovandella was not included in the comprehensive
alphabetic list by Jung (1791) nor mentioned by either Htibner (1816-1825) or
Herrich-Schaeffer (1855). Werneburg (1864, p. 234) was the only author to mention
Tinea aldrovandella but indicating with the symbol ‘+’ that the identity of the species
was completely unknown. Subsequently, to the best of our knowledge, the name
aldrovandella was not used after publication for any moth species until it was listed
in a catalogue (Leraut, 1980), as a doubtful synonym of A. australis. At the same
time, the name australis had been consistently used since 1851 by more than 20
authors, and it appeared in all major checklists and revisions (see Meyrick, 1912;
Kiippers, 1980; Vives Moreno, 1991, 1994; Karsholt & Razowski, 1996).

5. However, Rungs (1988) used the name al/drovandella as the senior synonym of
australis in his checklist, without justifying this action. So far, to the best of our
knowledge, only Leraut (1997) and Luquet (2000) have followed Rungs (1988).

6. In the interests of nomenclatural stability, we propose that the specific name of
Nematois australis Heydenreich, 1851 be given precedence over that of Tinea
aldrovandella Villers, 1789, whenever the two are synonyms.

7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to use its plenary power to give the name australis Heydenreich, 1851, as
published in the binomen Nematois australis, precedence over the name
aldrovandella Villers, 1789, as published in the binomen Tinea aldrovandella,
whenever the two are considered to be synonyms;

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) australis Heydenreich, 1851, as published in the binomen Nematois

australis, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the
name aldrovandella Villers, 1789, as published in the binomen Tinea
aldrovandella, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms;

(b) aldrovandella Villers, 1789, as published in the binomen Tinea aldrovan-
della, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the
name australis Heydenreich, 1851, as published in the binomen Nematois
australis, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms.

Acknowledgements
We are grateful to G. Robinson and K. Sattler for commenting on this application
and improving the text.

292 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003

References

Hemming, F. 1937. Hiibner: A bibliographical and systematic account of the entomological works
of Jacob Hiibner, and of the supplements thereto by Carl Geyer, Gottfried Franz von Frélich
and Gottlieb August Wilhelm Herrich-Schaeffer, vol. 1, xxxiv, 605 pp.; vol. 2, xi, 274 pp.
London.

Herrich-Schaeffer, G.A.W. 1847-1855. Systematische Bearbeitung der Schmetterlinge von
Europa, vol 5. Die Schaben und Federmotten. 394 pp., 124 pls. Regensburg.

Heydenreich, G.H. 1851. Lepidopterorum Europaeorum Catalogus Methodicus. 13\ pp. Leipzig.

Hiibner, J. 1816-1825. Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge. 431 pp. Augsburg.

Jung, C.C. 1791. Alphabetisches Verzeichniss der bisher bekannten Schmetterlinge aus allen
Welttheilen mit ihren Synonymen, vol. 1. x, 338 pp. Marktbreit.

Karsholt, O. & Razowski, J. (Eds.). 1996. The Lepidoptera of Europe: a distributional checklist.
380 pp. Stenstrup.

Kiippers, P.V. 1980. Untersuchungen zur Taxonomie und Phylogenie der westpaldarktischen
Adelinae (Lepidoptera: Adelidae). 497 pp. Karlsruhe.

Leraut, P. 1980. Liste systématique et synonymique des Lépidopteres de France, Belgique et
Corse (Supplement a Alexanor et Bulletin de la Société Entomologique de France). 334 pp.
Paris.

Leraut, P. 1997. Liste systematique et synonymique des Lepidopteres de France, Belgique et
Corse (deuxiéme édition). (Supplément a Alexanor). 526 pp. Paris.

Luquet, G.C. 2000. Biocoenotique des Lépidoptéres du Mont Ventoux (Vaucluse). (Supple-
ment a Alexanor). xviii, 398 pp. Paris.

Meyrick, E. 1912. Adelidae, Micropterygidae, Gracilariadae. Lepidopterorum Catalogus, 6:
1-68.

Nielsen, E.S. 1985. A taxonomic review of the adelid genus Nematopogon Zeller (Lepidoptera:
Incurvarioidea). Entomologica Scandinavica Supplement, 25: 1-66.

Rungs, C.E.E. 1988. Liste-inventaire systematique et synonymique des Lépidopteres de Corse.
[Supplement au tome 15 d’Alexanor]. 86 pp. Paris.

Villers, Ch. de. 1789. Caroli Linnaei Entomologia, Fauna Suecicae descriptionibus aucta; etc. 2
vols. xvi, 656 pp., 6 pls. Lugduni.

Vives Moreno, A. 1991. Catalogo sistemdatico y sinonimico de los Lepidopteros de la Peninsula
Iberica y Baleares (Insecta: Lepidoptera). 378 pp. Madrid.

Vives Moreno, A. 1994. Catdlogo sistemdatico y sinonimico de los Lepidopteros de la Peninsula
Iberica y Baleares (Insecta: Lepidoptera) (Segunda parte). x, 775 pp. Madrid.

Werneburg, A. 1864. Beitrdge zur Schmetterlingskunde. Kritische Bearbeitung der wichtigsten
entomologischen Werke des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts beztiglich der darin abgehandelten
Europdischen Schmetterlinge, 2 vols. iv,.350 pp. Erfurt.

Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 60: 94.

Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 S5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003 293

Case 3270

ISOMETRINAE Clark, 1917 (Echinodermata, Crinoidea): proposed
emendation of spelling to ISOMETRAINAE to remove homonymy with
ISOMETRINAE Kraepelin, 1891 (Arachnida, Scorpiones)

Victor Fet

Department of Biological Sciences, Marshall University, Huntington,
West Virginia 25755, U.S.A. (e-mail: fet@marshall.edu)

Charles Messing

Oceanographic Center, Nova Southeastern University, Dania Beach,
Florida 33004, U.S.A. (e-mail: messingc@nova.edu)

Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 55 and 29 of the Code, is to
remove the homonymy between the crinoid subfamily name ISOMETRINAE Clark, 1917
(type genus /sometra Clark, 1908; family ANTEDONIDAE) and the scorpion subfamily
name ISOMETRINAE Kraepelin, 1891 (type genus /sometrus Ehrenberg in Hemprich &
Ehrenberg, 1828; family BUTHIDAE). It is proposed that the entire generic name of
Isometra should be adopted as the stem, so that the correct spelling of the crinoid
subfamily will become ISOMETRAINAE Clark, 1917.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Crinoidea; Scorpiones; ANTEDONIDAE;
BUTHIDAE; ISOMETRAINAE; ISOMETRINAE; [sometra; Isometrus; crinoids; scorpions.

1. The scorpion subfamily name ISOMETRINAE (family BUTHIDAE) was published by
Kraepelin (1891, p. 6; as subfamily IsoMETRINI), based on the type genus Jsometrus
Ehrenberg in Hemprich & Ehrenberg, 1828 (plate I, fig. 3) (type species Buthus
(UIsometrus) filum Ehrenberg in Hemprich & Ehrenberg, 1828 (plate I, fig. 3) by
monotypy (a junior synonym of Scorpio maculatus DeGeer, 1778 (p. 346), currently
Isometrus maculatus)). The name Isometrus was published as a subgenus of Buthus
Leach, 1815 (p. 391) (type species Scorpio occitanus Amoreux, 1789 (p. 43), currently
Buthus occitanus, by original designation), and was elevated to rank of genus by
Thorell (1876, p. 9). The well-known genus /sometrus includes over 20 species, some
of them very common scorpions in the Oriental and Australasian regions (see Fet &
Lowe, 2000); the type species /sometrus maculatus (DeGeer) is cosmopolitan. Many
species of Jsometrus have been actively studied in recent decades (e.g. Gysin & Le
Corroller, 1968; Vachon, 1972; Armas, 1976; Kovarik, 1994, 1998). The name
ISOMETRINAE Kraepelin, 1891 has been often used (always at subfamily rank) in
taxonomic and biological works on BUTHIDAE (e.g. Birula (Byalynitski-Birulya),
1917; Pavlovskiy, 1924, 1925; Hoffmann, 1932; Mello-Leitao, 1934, 1945: Jaume,
1954; Bicherl, 1969, 1971; Aguilar & Meneses, 1970). Although subfamilies of
BUTHIDAE are not well defined at this moment (see Sissom, 1990; Fet & Lowe, 2000),
ISOMETRINAE Kraepelin, 1891 is among the oldest family-group names available in
BUTHIDAE and will probably be used as a valid taxon name.

294 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003

2. The crinoid subfamily name IsOMETRINAE Clark, 1917 (p. 6) (family
ANTEDONIDAE) is based on the type genus Jsometra Clark, 1908 (p. 133) (type species
Antedon challengeri Clark, 1907 (p. 353), by original designation, currently /sometra
challengeri). The name Antedon challengeri Clark, 1907 was published as a replace-
ment name for Antedon lineata Carpenter, 1888 (p. 183, plate 13, figs. 4, 5), a junior
homonym of Antedon lineatus Pomel, 1887 (currently Palaeantedon lineatus). The
genus Isometra, though known chiefly from high southern latitudes and including
only six species (two of which are known from single specimens), is one of the few
crinoid genera that exhibit internal brooding, and includes the only living crinoid
species in which skeletal modifications distinguish the sexes (e.g. John, 1938; Clark &
Clark, 1967; Lawrence, 1987). As a result, members of the genus are among the few
crinoid taxa in which early development has been investigated in any detail
(Mortensen, 1920). As a result, the name ISOMETRINAE Clark, 1917 has been used
regularly (always at subfamily rank) in taxonomic works on ANTEDONIDAE (e.g. Clark,
1918; Gislén, 1924; Clark & Clark, 1967; Rasmussen & Sieverts-Doreck, 1978). No
synonyms exist in the family-group.
3. Under Article 55.3.1 the homonymy between ISOMETRINAE Kraepelin, 1891 (for
scorpions) and IsOMETRINAE Clark, 1917 (for crinoids) must be referred to the
Commission. In accordance with Recommendation 29A, we propose that the entire
generic name Jsometra should be adopted as the grammatical stem, so that the
crinoid subfamily name will become ISOMETRAINAE and the homonymy will be
removed. We are aware that this proposal may cause some problems for crinoid
workers, but we can see no other resolution to the homonymy, short of ignoring
Article 55.3.1 and accepting the homonymy. This, however, is likely to cause
confusion during database searches.
4. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to rule that for the purposes of Article 29 of the Code
the stem of the generic name /sometra Clark, 1908 is ISOMETRA-;
to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) Isometrus Ehrenberg in Hemprich & Ehrenberg, 1828 (gender: masculine),
type species by monotypy Buthus (Isometrus) filum Ehrenberg in Hemprich
& Ehrenberg, 1828 (Scorpiones):

(b) Isometra Clark, 1908 (gender: feminine), type species by original desig-
nation Antedon challengeri Clark, 1907 (Crinoidea);

to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:

(a) maculatus DeGeer, 1778, as published in the binomen Scorpio maculatus
(senior synonym of Buthus (Isometrus) filum Ehrenberg in Hemprich &
Ehrenberg, 1828, the specific name of the type species of /sometrus
Ehrenberg in Hemprich & Ehrenberg, 1828) (Scorpiones);

(b) challengeri Clark, 1907, as published in the binomen Antedon challengeri
(specific name of the type species of Jsometra Clark, 1908) (Crinoidea):
to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the following

names:

(a) ISOMETRINAE Kraepelin, 1891, type genus /sometrus Ehrenberg in Hemprich
& Ehrenberg, 1828 (Scorpiones);

(b) ISOMETRAINAE Clark, 1917, type genus Jsometra Clark, 1908 (spelling
emended by the ruling in (1) above) (Crinoidea):

(2

—

(3

a

S

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003 295

(5) to place on the Official List of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in
Zoology the name ISOMETRINAE Clark, 1917 (an incorrect original spelling of
ISOMETRAINAE, as ruled in (1) above) (Crinoidea).

References

Aguilar, F.P.G. & Meneses, G.O. 1970. Escorpiones y escorpionismo en el Peru. I. Nota
preliminar sobre los Scorpionida peruanos. Anales Cientificos de la Universidad Nacional
Agraria, 8(1—2): 1-5.

Amoreux, P.-J. 1789. Notice des insectes de la France, réputés venimeux. 302 pp. Rue et Hotel
Serpente, Paris.

Armas, L.F. de. 1976. Notas sobre distribucion geografica de Jsometrus maculatus (De Geer)
(Scorpionida: Buthidae) en las Antillas. Miscelanea Zoologica, 5: 3-4.

Birula, A.A. (Byalynitskii-Birulya, A.A.) 1917. Faune de la Russie et des pays limitrophes fondee
principalement sur les collections du Musée Zoologique de I’ Académie des Sciences de
Russie. Arachnides (Arachnoidea), vol. 1, pt. 1. xx, 227 pp. Petrograd. [In Russian].
English translation: Byalynitski-Birulya, A.A. 1965. Fauna of Russia and Adjacent
Countries. Arachnoidea, vol. 1. Scorpions. xix, 154 pp. Israel Program for Scientific
Translations, Jerusalem.

Biicherl, W. 1969. Giftige Arthropoden. Pp. 764-793 in Fittkau, E.J. et al. (Eds.), Biogeography
and Ecology in South America (Monographiae Biologicae 19), vol. 2. Junk, Dordrecht.

Biicherl, W. 1971. Classification, biology and venom extraction of scorpions. Pp. 317-348 in
Bicherl, W. & Buckley, E. (Eds.), Venomous Animals and their Venoms, vol. 3. Academic
Press, New York.

Carpenter, P.H. 1888. Report upon the Crinoidea collected during the Voyage of H. M.S.
Challenger during the Years 1873-76, pt. 2. The Comatulae. Report on the Scientific
Results of the Voyage of H.M.S. Challenger, Zoology, vol. 26. x, 402 pp., pls. 1-70.

Clark, A.H. 1907. New genera of recent free crinoids. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections,
50(3): 343-364.

Clark, A.H. 1908. New genera of unstalked crinoids. Proceedings of the Biological Society of
Washington, 21: 125-136.

Clark, A.H. 1917. A revision of the crinoid family Antedonidae, with the diagnoses of nine new
genera. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 7(5): 127-131.

Clark, A.H. 1918. The unstalked crinoids of the Siboga Expedition. Siboga Expeditie, 42b: x,
328 pp, 28 pls.

Clark, A.H. & Clark, A.M. 1967. A monograph of the existing crinoids, 1(5). Bulletin of the
United States National Museum, 82: \—860.

DeGeer, C. 1778. Mémoires pour servir a Uhistoire des insectes, 7. 950 pp. Imprimerie Pierre
Hesselberg, Stockholm.

Fet, V. & Lowe, G. 2000. Family Buthidae. Pp. 54-286 in Fet, V., Sissom, W.D., Lowe, G. &
Braunwalder, M.E. Catalog of the Scorpions of the World (1758-1998 ). 690 pp. New York
Entomological Society.

Gislén, T. 1924. Echinoderm studies. Zoologiska Bidrag fran Uppsala, 9: 1-316.

Gysin, J. & Le Corroller, Y. 1968. Contribution a l'étude systématique du Scorpion ‘[sometrus
maculatus’ (de Geer, 1778). Archives de l'Institut Pasteur d’ Algérie, 46: 64-75.

Hemprich, F.W. & Ehrenberg, C.G. 1828. Zoologica II. Arachnoidea. plate I: Buthus; plate II:
Androctonus in: Symbolae physicae seu icones et descriptiones animalium evertebratorum
sepositis insectis quae ex itinere per Africam borealem et Asiam occidentalem . . . (plates
only). Venditur a Mittlero, Berolini ex Officina Academica.

Hoffmann, C.C. 1932. Monografias para la entomologia médica de México. Monografia Num.
2, Los escorpiones de México. Segunda parte: Buthidae. Anales del Instituto de Biologia
Universidad Nacional Autonoma de México, 3(3): 243-282: 3(4): 283-361.

Jaume, M.L. 1954. Catalogo de la fauna cubana. IV. Catalogo de los Scorpionida de Cuba.
Circulares del Museo y Biblioteca de Zoologia de La Habana, 1954: 1035-1092.

John, D.D. 1938. Crinoidea. Discovery Reports, 18: 121-222.

296 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003

Kovarik, F. 1994. Isometrus zideki sp.n. from Malaysia and Indonesia, and a taxonomic
position of Jsometrus formosus, I. thurstoni and I. sankariensis (Arachnida: Scorpionida:
Buthidae). Acta Societatis Zoologicae Bohemicae, 58: 195—203.

Kovarik, F. 1998. Isometrus (Reddyanus) krasenskyi sp.n. from Indonesia and I. (R.) navaiae
sp.n. from the Philippines (Scorpiones, Buthidae). Acta Societatis Zoologicae Bohemicae,
62: 35-40.

Kraepelin, K. 1891. Revision der Skorpione. I. Die Familie der Androctonidae. Jahrbuch der
Hamburgischen Wissenschaftlichen Anstalten, 8: 1-144.

Lawrence, J.M. 1987. A Functional Biology of Echinoderms. xii, 340 pp. Johns Hopkins
University Press, Baltimore.

Leach, W.E. 1815. A tabular view of the external characters of four classes of animals, which
Linné arranged under Insecta; with the distribution of the genera composing three of these
classes into orders, etc. and descriptions of several new genera and species. Transactions
of the Linnean Society of London, 11(2): 306-400.

Mello-Leitao, C. de. 1934. Estudo monografico dos Escorpides da Republica Argentina.
Octava Reunion de la Sociedad Argentina Santiago del Estero, 1933. 97 pp.

Mello-Leitao, C. de. 1945. Escorpides sul-americanos. Arquivos do Museu Nacional, 40: 7-468.

Mortensen, T. 1920. Studies in the development of crinoids. Papers from the Department of
Marine Biology, Carnegie Institution of Washington, 16: 1-94.

Payloyskij, E.N. 1924. On the morphology of the male genital apparatus in scorpions. Trudy
Leningradskogo Obshchestva Yestestvoispytatelei [Transactions of the Leningrad Society of
Naturalists], 53(2): 17-86. }

Payloyskij, E. 1925. Zur Morphologie des weiblichen Genitalapparats und zur Embryologie
der Skorpione. Annuaire du Musée Zoologique de I’ Académie des Sciences d’'URSS, 26:
137-205.

Pomel, N.A. 1887. Paléontologie ou, Description des Animaux Fossiles de 1 Algérie. Zoophytes,
vol 2, pt. 2. 344 pp. Fontana, Alger.

Rasmussen, H.W. & Sieverts-Doreck, H. 1978. Articulata. Classification. Pp. T813-T928 in
Moore, R.C. & Teichert, C. (Eds.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part T.
Echinodermata 2(3). Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colorado.

Sissom, W.D. 1990. Chapter 3. Systematics, biogeography and paleontology. Pp. 64-160 in
Polis, G.A. (Ed.), Biology of Scorpions. 587 pp. Stanford University Press, California.

Thorell, T. 1876. On the classification of scorpions. Annals and Magazine of Natural History,
4(17): 1-15.

Vachon, M. 1972. Remarques sur les Scorpions appartenant au genre Jsometrus H. et E.
(Buthidae) a propos de lespéce Isometrus maculatus (Geer) habitant Vile de Paques.
Cahiers du Pacifique, 16: 169-180.

Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 60: 94

Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003 297

Comment on Zoological Record and registration of new names in zoology
(General Article; see BZN 60: 7-11)

David J. Patterson
School of Biological Sciences, University of Sydney, N.S.W. 2006, Australia

David Remsen and Cathy Norton
Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543, U.S.A.

The proposal presented in this article to register all new zoological names is a
welcome addition to the initiatives to bring taxonomic practices into the informatics
age (see Agosti & Johnston, 2002; Godfray, 2002; Patterson, 2003). Implementation
of this strategy would bring the informatics base for animals closer to the situation
that prevails for viruses, bacteria, plants, algae and fungi, where similar develop-
ments have allowed both taxonomists and others who use names to take better
advantage of the informatics world.

“Compilations of names’ are a key step in the realization of other visions of greatly
enhanced access to information about organisms (Patterson, 2003). The value of
names compilations has been recognized by a variety of groups (Ruggiero et al.,
2002) and agencies, such as GBIF, ITIS, and Species2000. Most compilations
currently being assembled serve to catalogue our biodiversity or to provide reference
materials for the community of taxonomists. It is more rare to find initiatives that
capitalize on the informatics value of taxonomy.

A number of developments are needed to allow biodiversity bioinformatics to
make progress. Future strategies must not be conceived as databases but in the
context of Internet computing (Stein, 2002). We need openly accessible, non-partisan
repositories of names of plants, fungi and microorganisms, as well as of animals. New
structures will need to reconcile alternative (whether formal or colloquial) names for
the same entities, be respectful of nomenclatural protocols, and accommodate
divergent hierarchical classifications. Additional benefits emerge if a distinction is
made between names (where the strongest informatics signal lies) and the more
subjective elements of taxonomy such as classification schemes (where most of the
noise lies) (Pullan et al., 2000). Structures with these features have been
available—but they have not been drawn together beyond the conceptual level. We
are of the view that the critical step in releasing the potential for biodiversity
bioinformatics is the development of name servers that meet the criteria listed above.

Name servers are devices that manage information about biological names and
classifications, of which the Taxonomic Name Server (TNS) of the Universal
Biological Indexer and Organizer (uBio) project is a good example. The uBio project
is based at the Marine Biological Laboratory and Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution Library (MBL/WHOI Library) in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, U.S.A.,
where it is supported by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation (http://www.ubio.org).
The project emerged alongside initiatives to digitize resources within biological
literature. As any and all collections of biological information possess an internal
index of names, the project sought to call upon names to create pathways to
associated data. By including classificatory structures, we can enhance the biological

298 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003

context of these pathways. The result was a name server using names and
classification as devices to access, index and organize biological information.

uBio’s Taxonomic Name Server (TNS) embraces but transcends the nomenclatural
traditions of microbiology, botany and zoology. It fulfils the normal thesaural
expectations of name servers in mapping alternative names for taxa against each
other. It separates names from the classification systems with which they are
normally associated. Consequently, the name server is neither limited to nor needs to
endorse a single classification, but can operate with many co-existing classifications.
Without a dependency on classification structures, the system can acquire names that
are not placed within any classification but still have informatics potential—such as
indexes to holdings in museums or herbaria.

The TNS data model has three broad domains: one for objective nomenclatural
information (names, authorities, publications), the second for subjective elements of
taxonomy (the ranks assigned to names, synonymies, and hierarchical classifi-
cations), and the third relates to management and maintenance of the content and
contributions. The last dimension reflects our dependency on the expertise of
numerous taxonomists for the content and organizational principles of TNS, and
for moulding the structure in which the data resources are placed. In addition to
holding data on names and classifications, TNS also documents and credits the
origins of data and opinions and provides a return to the taxonomic community by
transforming taxonomic knowledge into valuable organizational services.

TNS is currently being populated with the names of all genera and with collective
name indexes provided by a large number of individual and institutional collabora-
tors. Because of its potential value to bibliographic enterprises, the uBio project is
also committed to the incorporation of older and colloquial names and to this end is
co-operating in the conversion of Neave’s Nomenclator Zoologicus to an electronic
format.

From our point of view, the tradition of separating the nomenclature of animals
(and other organisms treated as animals) from the nomenclature of plants is no
longer desirable. This tradition has sociological and logistical foundations. The
defense of these traditions is likely to lead to new informatics tools with the same
aims, but which achieve these aims in different ways. Many services that call upon
biological information, such as collective indices and authority lists already employed
within libraries, information providers, or in molecular databases, are blind to these
boundaries. So too are many groups responsible for the monitoring and management
of our biodiversity and renewable natural resources who need tools to access
information on the appearance, occurrence, and distribution of, and threats to, all
types of organisms.

The integration of the concept proposed by Thorne with a name server brings
considerable advantages beyond those envisaged for zoology. The first is the capacity
for an immediate conversion of catalogues of names into tools capable of drawing
together information about organisms to serve the needs of researchers, educators,
and decision makers. Second, the placement of zoological names within a universal
names compendium allows progress within a global rather than a parochial context.
A comprehensive names compilation has nomenclatural advantages, for example
eliminating the excuse for all. future homonyms, and overcoming many of the
problems associated with names of organisms that are only arguable plants or

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003 299

animals and so fall into the ambiregnal category (Corliss, 1995; Patterson, 1986).
Finally, these structures will serve the needs of taxonomists by improving access to
information and by providing evidence of the value of taxonomy and of taxonomists.

Estimates that it may take 10 years to compile a list of all names seem to based on
the presumption that the initial steps for aggregating names require expert quality
control (Patterson, 2003). This limits the rate of names aggregation. The uBio names
acquisition strategy includes three key elements to allow more rapid progress. The
first is the separation of objective from subjective elements of taxonomy. Second, we
place the quality control step after the compilation of names. This eliminates the
rate-limiting step while retaining most of the potential of names as indexing and
organizing structures. Finally, our strategy to collect generic names first, coupled
with the development of software tools capable of folding in specific names from
other names lists, can achieve a unified compilation of all names in current use within
the foreseeable future. The only impediment will be the willingness of key bodies to
share their names information.

In this regard, we are pleased to note that Zoological Record has addressed
concerns of access to names in committing continuing access to the Index to
Organism Names (http://www. biosis.org.uk/ion), and more generally the enthusiasm
to share their resources with other names and biodiversity initiatives. We urge the
Commission to support this offer, and to promote its extension to all organisms.

Additional references

Agosti, D. & Johnson, N.F. 2002. Taxonomists need better access to published data. Nature,
417: 222

Corliss, J.O. 1995. The ambiregnal protists and the Codes of nomenclature: a brief review of
the problem and of proposed solutions. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 52: 11-17.

Godfray, C.H.J. 2002. Challenges for taxonomy. Nature, 417: 17-19

Patterson, D.J. 1986. Some problems of ambiregnal taxonomy and a possible solution.
Symposia Biologica Hungarica, 33: 87-93.

Patterson, D.J. 2003. Progressing towards a biological names register. Nature, 422: 661.

Pullan, M.R., Watson, M.G.F., Kennedy, J.B., Raguenaud, C. & Hyam, R. 2000.
The Prometheus taxonomic model: a practical approach to representing multiple
classifications. Taxon, 49: 55—75.

Ruggiero, M., Bisby, F., Wilson, K. & Shimura, J. 2002. Towards a ‘Catalogue of Life’. Report
of GBIF STAG meeting, Sydney, Australia, 15-16 March 2002.

Stein, L. 2002. Creating a bioinformatics nation. Nature, 417: 119-120.

Comments on this issue are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).

300 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003

Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific name of and designation of a
neotype for Spongia ventilabrum Linnaeus, 1767 (currently Phakellia ventilabrum;
Porifera)

(Case 3216; see BZN 60: 16-19)

Belinda Alvarez and Richard C. Willan

Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory, GPO Box 4646, Darwin,
NT 0801, Australia

As the result of a misunderstanding at the proof stage of this application, the
Commission Secretariat introduced an error. Although Linnaeus (1767) originally
spelt the specific name ventilabra, Johnson (1842) changed it to ventilabrum.
Subsequently Johnson’s spelling has prevailed (see Article 33.3.1 of the Code; the
Secretariat holds a list of 28 references that show prevailing usage). Accordingly, we
make the following corrections to para. 11 of our application:

(2) . . . type species by original designation Spongia ventilabrum Linnaeus, 1767:

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name ventilabrum,
as published in the binomen Spongia ventilabrum Linnaeus, 1767. . .

Comments on the proposed conservation of Melania curvicostata Reeve, 1861 and
Goniobasis paupercula Lea, 1862 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) by the designation of a
neotype for Melania curvicostata (Reeve, 1861)

(Case 3232; see BZN 60: 109-112)

(1) Wallace E. Holznagel

Department of Biological Sciences, College of Arts and Sciences, University of
Alabama, 425 Scientific Collections Building, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0345,
U.S.A.

I fully support the application to set aside all previous type fixations and designate
the specimen Florida Museum of Natural History 292208 as the neotype of Melania
curvicostata Reeve, 1861 and to place on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology the specific names of M. curvicostata and Goniobasis paupercula Lea, 1862.
At present there is considerable interest and research in the molluscan fauna of the
southeastern United States, which is considered to be a hot spot of freshwater
biological diversity. To understand adequately the biodiversity of this region or
any region and make informed conservation recommendations researchers need type
material that truly reflects the original species description.

The following four correspondents (2)-(5) have all pointed out the same Code-
compliant resolution to this case.

(2) L.B. Holthuis
National Museum of Natural History, Naturalis, P.O. Box 9517, 2300 RA Leiden,
The Netherlands

It is stated in the application that the specimen figured as Me/ania curvicostata by
Reeve, 1861 is different from all the existing syntypes and probably is the only one of

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003 301

the type series to belong to the species currently known as Elimia curvicostata. The
Commission has been asked to use the plenary power to designate a neotype for this
species. Would it not be more logical for the authors to select the figured specimen
(Reeve, 1861, pl. 58, species 462) as the lectotype to fix the identity of the species in
the way wanted by the authors without action by the Commission? This can be done
in relation to Article 74.4 of the Code.

(3) Arthur E. Bogan

North Carolina State Museum of Natural Sciences, Research Laboratory, 4301
Reedy Creek Road, Raleigh, NC 27607, U.S.A.

There is no confusion between the two taxa E. curvicostata from Georgia and
Florida and E. paupercula from creeks in northern Alabama (e.g. Tryon, 1873,
pp. 192, 292; Burch & Tottenham, 1980, pp. 136, 137, 140, 141; Thompson, 1984,
pp. 25-27). Thompson & Mihalcik presented no evidence of any previous assumption
of holotype or designation of a lectotype for Melania curvicostata Reeve, 1861. The
designation of the figured syntype of M. curvicostata as the lectotype would fix the
identity of the species clearly illustrated by Reeve (see Articles 72.5.6; 74.4 of
the Code).

Additional reference

Tryon, G.W. Jr. 1873. Land and fresh-water shells of North America. Part 4. Strepomatidae
(American melanians). Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 16: \-435.

(4) Daniel L. Graf
The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103, U.S.A.

According to Chambers (1990, p. 239), the types associated with some of Reeve’s
names, including Melania curvicostata and M. densicostata, ‘could not be located’ in
the BMNH. I would like to know more about these specimens and the evidence for
their validity as type material. Specimens in J.G. Anthony’s personal collection, now
deposited in the MCZ (Turner, 1946), have been recognized as figured specimens of
nominal species described by Reeve (see Graf, 2001). Throughout their application
the authors seem to have a genuine expectation that there should be a specimen that
looks just like that figure. If Reeve’s figure of M. curvicostata was based on a single
(now missing) shell that may possibly be found (and the figure of that shell is
adequate to recognize the species), would it not be more appropriate to simply
designate the figured specimen as the lectotype under Article 74.4 of the Code?

Article 74.4 allows that the ‘designation of an illustration or description of a
syntype as a lectotype is to be treated as designation of the specimen illustrated or
described; the fact that the specimen no longer exists or cannot be traced does not of
itself invalidate the designation’ (see Article 72.5.6).

Additional reference

Turner, R.D. 1946. John Gould Anthony, with a bibliography and catalogue of his species.
Occasional Papers on Mollusks, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University,
1(8): 81-108.

302 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003

(5) Russell L. Minton
University of Louisiana at Monroe, Monroe, LA 71209, U.S.A.

The BMNH syntypes would become paralectotypes in need of re-identification
if the authors believe that these specimens are in fact Elimia paupercula (Lea, 1862).
No other action need be taken concerning M. densicostata (simple synonymy) or
G. paupercula. The Commission may still want to place the names on the Official List.

(6) Dietrich Kadolsky
66 Heathhurst Road, Sanderstead, Surrey CR2 OBA, U.K.

1. Melania curvicostata Reeve, 1861 (currently Elimia curvicostata) is a junior
primary homonym of Melania curvicostata Melleville, 1843 (p. 94, pl. 4, figs. 10-12)
(currently Melanatria curvicostata). The latter name has been treated since its
introduction as the valid name for a fossil from the Early Eocene (Sparnacien) of
the Paris Basin, for which no other synonym is available (see Wenz, 1929,
pp. 2620-2621). North American species have long been removed from the genus
Melania Lamarck, 1799 (= Thiara Roding, 1798), which has historically served as a
hold-all for many freshwater CERITHIOIDEA (now classified in the families THIARIDAE,
PACHYCHILIDAE and PLEUROCERIDAE). It is probable that neither name has been
classified in the genus Melania since 1899. However, this primary homonymy should
be referred to the Commission under Article 23.9.5 of the Code.

2. The fact that Melania curvicostata Reeve, 1861 is invalid as a junior primary
homonym removes a potential threat to the name Goniobasis paupercula Lea, 1862,
which Thompson and Mihalcik want to protect.

3. I would prefer that the Code be strictly applied in this case. However, if a
neotype is to be designated as proposed in the application, I wonder why an empty
shell has been proposed considering the importance of anatomy and molecular
genetics in molluscan taxonomy. Perhaps the applicants or others familiar with these
taxa may wish to elaborate on this point.

Additional references

Melleville, M. 1843. Mémoire sur les sables tertiaires inférieures du bassin de Paris, avec la
description de 78 espéces de coquilles fossiles inédites de ce terrain. Annales des Sciences
géologiques ou Archives de Géologie . . ., 2: 1-29, 77-120.

Wenz, W. 1929. Gastropoda extramarina tertiaria, pt. 40. Pp. 2503-2886 in: Fossiliumn
Catalogus, 1. Animalia. Jank, Berlin.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003 303

Comment on the proposed conservation of prevailing usage of TERMOPSIDAE
Holmgren, 1911, Termopsis Heer, 1849 and Miotermes Rosen, 1913
(Insecta, Isoptera)

(Case 3244: see BZN 60: 119-123)

M.A. Alonso-Zarazaga

Depto. de Biodiversidad y Biologia Evolutiva, Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales
(CSIC), Jesé Gutiérrez Abascal 2, E-28006 Madrid, Spain

The genus Termopsis Heer, 1849 is compounded by the stem ferm- (of genus
Termes, a Latin third declension masculine substantive) and ending -opsis, taken
from the Greek word opsis, meaning ‘aspect’ or ‘appearance’, which is feminine.
According to Article 30.1.2 of the Code, the genus Termopsis is feminine in gender
(this name is actually given as an example in the Code). All zoological genera ending
in -opsis, irrespective of the original genus given by their authors, are feminine.
Original specific names that are not in accordance with the current genus gender must
be emended (see Article 34.2).

Article 68.1 explicitly states the precedence of the different kinds of type species
fixation. Type species fixation by original designation has precedence over type
species fixation by monotypy. Consequently, I request that para. 11 of Case 3244 be
amended as follows:

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names:

(a) Termopsis Heer, 1849 (gender: feminine), type species by designation in (1)
above Termopsis bremii Heer, 1849;

(b) Miotermes Rosen, 1913 (gender: masculine), type species by original
designation Termopsis procera Heer, 1849...

Comment on the proposed precedence of Bolboceras Kirby, 1819 (July)
(Insecta, Coleoptera) over Odonteus Samouelle, 1819 (June)
(Case 3097; see BZN 59: 246-248, 280-281)

Frank-Thorsten Krell

Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London
SW7 SBD, U.K.

Stefano Ziani
Via S. Giovanni, 41la, I-47014 Meldola (Forli), Italy

Alberto Ballerio

clo Museo Civico di Scienze Naturali ‘E. Caffi’, Piazza Cittadella 10, I-24129
Bergamo, Italy

1. We oppose Jameson & Howden’s application to give Bolboceras Kirby, 1819
(July) precedence over Odonteus Samouelle, 1819 (June) because the latter name is
not only the older synonym but is also more frequently used in the current literature
than Bolboceras. We also oppose including names currently considered to be junior

304 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003

synonyms on the Official Lists of Generic and Specific Names in Zoology. Since
opinions differ about whether Kirby designated a type species for Bolboceras, we ask
the Commission to designate as the type species of this genus the species that Kirby
chose.

The usage problem

2. The main concern we have about Jameson & Howden’s application is that they
neglect the established and frequent use of Odonteus Samouelle in Europe in
taxonomic, faunistic and conservation literature. Krikken (1978) rediscovered
Samouelle’s first introduction of this name into the literature and stated that the
forgotten original spelling was Odonteus. Later, he considered Bolboceras Kirby,
1819 to be a junior synonym of Odonteus Samouelle, 1819 (Krikken, 1979, p. 37;
1984, p. 23). Nikolaev (1980), Shirt (1986) and Jessop (1986) had already accepted
this synonymy before Krell (1990) presented further evidence for the temporal
precedence of Samouelle’s name. Before Krikken (1978), the spelling Odonteus had
also been used occasionally (Hildt, 1892, p. 216, 1896, p. 215; Kinelski & Szujecki,
1959, p. 234). The claims of Jameson & Howden (BZN 59, p. 247) that Krell (1990)
was the only one to use Odonteus Samouelle in recent times, and of Jameson (2002,
p. 25) that this name ‘has not been used in the primary literature for over 70 years’,
are not correct. Harpootlian in his comment (BZN 59, pp. 280-281) mentioned two
more references, but even he underestimated enormously the extent of usage of this
name. The name Odonteus Samouelle, 1819 (with or without mentioning the author)
has been used as a valid name in its original spelling by Koch (1991, p. 350), Krell
(1991; 1993, p. 23; 1994, p. 13; 1995, p. 52; 1996, p. 19; 2001, p. 247), Hyman &
Parsons (1992, pp. 23, 33, 334), Krell & Fery (1992, p. 202), Silfverberg (1992, p. 37),
Duff (1993, p. 126), Ball (1995), Carpaneto & Piattella (1995, p. 3), Girlich et al.
(1995, p. 71), Adam (1996, p. 304), Alexandrovitch et al. (1996, p. 29), Hansen (1996,
p. 125), Kahlen & Hellrig! (1996, p. 473), Kalisiak (1996, p. 1), Klausnitzer & Krell
(1996, pp. 31f), Lopez-Colon et al. (1996, p. 4), Nikritski et al. (1996, p. 51), ROssner
(1996, p. 49), Melloni & Landi (1997, p. 25), Telnov et al. (1997, p. 55), Carpaneto
et al. (1998, p. 18; 2001, p. 313), KOhler & Klausnitzer (1998, p. 128), Nadai & Merk]
(1999, p. 216), Martin-Piera & Lopez-Cofon (2000, pp. 182, 498), Rheinheimer (2000,
p. 102), Geiser (2001, p. 405), Jaszay (2001, p. 106), Lo Cascio (2001, p. 176), Ballerio
(2002, p. 60), Frank & Konzelmann (2002, p. 129) and Schaefer (2002, p. 400). The
correct spelling with erroneous authorship was used by Kral (1993; Odonteus Dejean,
1821) and Adam (1994, p. 12; Odonteus Leach, 1819). The incorrect subsequent
spelling ‘Odontaeus Samouelle’ was used by Paulian & Baraud (1982, p. 57), Zunino
(1984, p. 18), Baraud (1992, p. 46) and Bunalski (1999, p. 8), and the spelling
Odontaeus without author or with incorrect authorship by, e.g., Shirt (1987, p. 22),
Schulze (1992, p. 182), Bordat (1997, p. 15), Mittal (1998, 2000), Mitter (2000, p. 63)
(see next paragraph for older references).

3. Odontaeus Dejean, 1821 is in fact an incorrect subsequent spelling of Odonteus
Samouelle, 1819 and not a separate genus group name because it was used at the
same time for the same species. This cannot be explained by mere coincidence.
After Samouelle’s indication in 1819, Odonteus became the established name for
Scarabaeus mobilicornis Fabricius, 1775 (then synonymized with Scarabaeus armiger
Scopoli, 1772) and related species, although before Krikken’s rediscovery of the

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003 305

correct authorship and spelling, the name has often been attributed to other authors
and the incorrect spelling Odontaeus has been used (Klug, 1845, p. 37; Horn, 1870,
p. 50; Bertolini, 1891, p. 165; Reitter, 1893, p. 5; Boucomont, 1902, 1911; Arens,
1922; Wallis, 1928; Luigioni, 1929, p. 389; Endrdédi, 1956, p. 29; Landin, 1957, p. 54;
Janssens, 1960, p. 111; Machatschke, 1969, p. 274; Allenspach, 1970, p. 42 etc.).
Before Cartwright (1953) rediscovered Curtis’s (1829) type species designation for
Bolboceras Kirby, the American species of this genus were in Odontaeus whereas
Bolboceras had been used for more than 100 species of other genera (Horn, 1870,
pp. 49-50; Boucomont, 1902, 1911; Wallis, 1928). Because of Curtis’s (1829) type
species designation for Bolboceras, Cartwright transferred the Odontaeus species to
Bolboceras and the American Bolboceras species to Bradycinetulus Cockerell,
Bolbocerastes Cartwright and Bolborhombus Cartwright. In the Old World, this shift
of the name Bolboceras to what was formerly Odontaeus has only been followed by
a few authors (Paulian, 1959, p. 44; Benasso, 1971, p. 133; Bangsholt et al., 1979,
p. 31; Lundberg, 1986, p. 65; Nikolaev, 1987, p. 27; Barbero & Cavallo, 1999, p. 70),
whereas from the 1980s the usage of the correct spelling and authorship of Odonteus
has become widely accepted and stable (see references above).

4. Hence, Jameson & Howden’s application cannot be followed because Article
23.9.3 expressly states that the junior synonym can prevail only if ‘the use of the older
synonym would threaten stability or universality or cause confusion’. We have
demonstrated above that in this case there is not any ‘stability or universality’ in the
use of Bolboceras, while there has been relatively stable use of Odonteus. The only
‘stability’ we can find in the use of Bolboceras is geographically restricted to the
North American entomological community. This usage is relatively recent. In the
older North American literature we can still find cases of use of Odontaeus (e.g.
Wallis, 1928; Sim, 1930). In the European entomological and conservation commu-
nity, 1t is Odonteus that is stable since this name has been used predominantly for over
a century and a half (hence there would be a lot of confusion in the European
entomological and conservation community if the name Bolboceras were to be ruled
as the name to follow). In the absence of ‘stability or universality’ in the use of the
junior synonym (Bolboceras), Article 23.9.3 cannot be applied in this case, and the
only sensible approach is to strictly follow the Principle of Priority and rule that
the name to use is Odonteus.

The type species problem

5. Contrary to Jameson & Howden (BZN 59, p. 247) the type species of Odonteus
Samouelle is Scarabaeus mobilicornis Fabricius, 1775 (p. 11), not S. mobilicornis
Marsham, 1802 (according to Article 67.7). Although Samouelle wrote ‘Scarabaeus
mobilicornis, Marsh.’, Marsham is not the author of this species but simply used
Fabricius’s species name (Marsham, 1802, p. 8). Since S. mobilicornis Fabricius is an
established junior synonym of Scarabaeus armiger Scopoli, 1772 (Boucomont, 1911,
p. 15; Baraud, 1992, p. 46; Martin-Piera & Lopez-Colon, 2000, p. 498), it should not
be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. Instead, its senior valid
synonym (Scarabaeus armiger Scopoli, 1772) might be placed on the list.

6. We wonder whether Curtis’s (1829) type species designation is valid. First
Westwood (1855, p. 12) and then Boucomont (1911, p. 334) considered Kirby’s
remark in the original description ‘My details of Bolboceras were taken from

306 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003

B. quadridens to be a type species designation (Westwood: “The species, moreover,
which it will be advisable to regard as the type of Bolboceras, will be Sc. quadridens,
Linn., as that was the species dissected by Mr. Kirby.’; Boucomont: “L’auteur de
ce genre, Kirby, a pris comme espece typique B. quadridens L. (F.)’. Kirby attributed
B. quadridens erroneously to Linnaeus; this name was cited only in the last edition of
Systema Naturae, edited by Gmelin (Gmelin, 1788, p. 1530) who referred explicitly to
Fabricius’s Indian species (Fabricius, 1781, p. 11), not to Panzer’s (1793) Scarabaeus
quadridens, which is a junior synonym of the European species Bolbelasmus unicornis
(Schrank, 1789) (original spelling: unicornu) according to Klug (1845, p. 39).

7. Kirby’s remark is certainly the reason why Odonteus and Bolboceras had been
considered to be distinct genera for a long time (Klug, 1845, pp. 36-37; Horn, 1870,
p. 50; Reitter, 1893, pp. 4-5). In our opinion, Kirby declared explicitly that he used
exclusively B. quadridens to describe the genus. Therefore, the other species were
included after the description was compiled. Hence, B. quadridens is neither only an
example (sensu Article 67.5.1.) nor ambiguous under Article 67.5.3. It is, however,
not explicitly designated as the type species either, but in fact it is the type species that
Kirby chose. Jameson and Howden are right that the first unequivocal type species
designation is that by Curtis (1829): Scarabaeus mobilicornis. Therefore, we ask
the Commission to set aside Curtis's type species designation and to designate
Scarabaeus quadridens as the type species of Bolboceras Kirby, 1819, following
Kirby’s intention and taking into account the current usage in Asia (see below).
However, this act creates a new junior synonym: In 1979, Nikolajev described the
monotypic genus /ndobolbus for Bolboceras quadridens. According to Zoological
Record, Indobolbus has only been used after its description by Krikken (1984) who
included 10 other former Bolboceras species in this genus. However, in Asia both the
type species of Indobolbus, Bolboceras quadridens, and Indobolbus transversalis are
still assumed to belong to Bo/boceras by Asian authors (Mittal, 1981; Yadav et al..
1990; Chandra, 1996). Moreover, Bolboceras is not only still in use for Indobolbus
species, but used in the old broad sense of Boucomont (1902), which simply shows
that the works of modern authors have not been considered in Asia so far (but also
shows that the use of Bolboceras is not stable and universal). If the Commission
decides to follow our proposal to designate B. quadridens as the type species of
Bolboceras Kirby, 1819, Indobolbus Nikolajev, 1979, which has the same type species,
will be a junior synonym. This would mean the shift of the name Bolboceras Kirby
from a genus of ten American species to a genus of 11 species from the Afrotropical
and Oniental regions (where the name is still in use). However, since Bo/boceras is not
the valid name for the American species anyway, this shift would not cause any more
confusion than the necessary revived utilisation of the valid name Odonteus in North
America, and only North America will be affected.

8. To fix the identity of Bolboceras quadridens Fabricius, 1781 beyond doubt, the
first author of this comment (F.-T. Krell) herewith designates the lectotype. The
species has been described from material of the Banks collection, which is housed in
The Natural History Museum, London. Although, two further specimens of B.
quadridens are in Fabricius’s collection in Kiel (Zimsen, 1964, p. 24) they do not have
to be considered because two specimens exist in the Banks collection. The first author
chose the smaller specimen without label to be designated as the lectotype because it
belongs to the species currently considered to be B. quadridens (as diagnosed by the

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003. 307

generic and specific characters given by Nikolajev (1979, p. 190) and Krikken (1984,
pp. 27, 34) for Indobolbus Nikolajev, and Fabricius (1781, p. 11) and Chandra (1996)
for B. quadridens). A second specimen with the handwritten label “Scarab. quadridens
/ Fabr. Sp. Ins. no 37° belongs to Bolboceras nigricans Westwood, 1848, and does
not correspond with the original description (‘capitis clypeo bidentato’), because in
B. nigricans the clypeus is pointed.

9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly

asked:

(1) to use its plenary power to set aside all previous fixations of type species for the
nominal genus Bolboceras Kirby, 1819 and to designate Scarabaeus quadridens
Fabricius, 1781 as type species;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) Odonteus Samouelle, 1819 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy:

Scarabaeus mobilicornis Fabricius, 1775;
(b) Bolboceras Kirby, 1819 (gender: masculine), type species by designation in
(1) above Scarabaeus quadridens Fabricius, 1781;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name quadridens
Fabricius, 1781, as published in the binomen Scarabaeus quadridens and as
defined by the lectotype designated in para. 8 above (specific name of the type
species of Bolboceras Kirby, 1819).

Additional references

Adam, L. 1994. A check-list of the Hungarian Scarbaeoidea with the description of ten new

_ taxa (Coleoptera). Folia Entomologica Hungarica, 55: 5—17.

Adam, L. 1996. Scarabaeoidea (Coleoptera) of the Bukk National Park. Pp. 299-308 in
Mahunka, S. (Ed.), The Fauna of the Biikk National Park IT. Hungarian Natural History
Museum, Budapest.

Alexandrovitch, O.R., Lopatin, I.K., Pisanenko, A.D., Tsinkevitch, V.A. & Snitko, S.M. 1996.
A Catalogue of Coleoptera (Insecta) of Belarus. 104 pp. Fund of Fundamental
Investigations of the Republic of Belarus, Minsk.

Allenspach, V. 1970. Coleoptera Scarabaeidae, Lucanidae. Insecta Helvetica Catalogus, 2:
1-186.

Arens, L.E. 1922. K biologii Odontaeus armiger Scop. (Coleoptera). [zvestya Petrogrograd-
skogo Nauchnogo Instituta Imeni P. F. Lesgafta, 5: 241-246.

Ball, S.G. 1995. ’Recorder’ software package, Version 3.21b. Jot Nature Conservation
Committee, Peterborough.

Ballerio, A. 2002. La legge Regionale 56/2000 della Regione Toscana ed il futuro dell’attivita
entomologica in Italia. Pp. 58-66 in Cerfolli, F., Petrassi, F. & Petretti, F. (Ed.), Libro
Rosso degli Animali d'Italia - Invertebrati. 83 pp. WWF Italia, Roma.

Bangsholt, F., Bistrém, O., Lundberg, S., Muona, J., Silfverberg, H. & Strand, A. 1979.
Enumeratio Coleopterorum Fennoscandiae et Daniae, vol. 5. 79 pp. Helsingin Hy6nteis-
vaihtoyhdistys, Helsinki.

Baraud, J. 1992. Coléopteres Scarabaeoidea d’Europe. Faune de France, France et régions
limitrophes, 78: ix, 1-858.

Barbero, E. & Cavallo, O. 1999. I coleotteri scarabaeoidea degradatori (Trogidae, Geotrupi-
dae, Scarabaeidae, Aphodiidae) del Museo civico ‘F. Eusebio’. Alba Pompeia, n.s., 20:
65-81.

Benasso, G. 1971. Contributo alla conoscenza dell’entomofauna del Carso triestino:
Scarabaeoidea. Atti del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale Trieste, 27: 129-166.

308 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003

Bertolini, S. 1891. Contribuzione alla fauna trentina dei Coleotteri. Bollettino della Societa
Entomologica Italiana, 23: 169-217.

Bordat, P. 1997. Premiere partie: Lucanoidea, Scarabaeoidea Laparosticti. Catalogue des
Coléopteres de I'Ile de France, 6: 8-37.

Boucomont, A. 1902. Coleoptera Lamellicornia Fam. Geotrupidae. Genera Insectorum, 7: \—20.

Boucomont, A. 1911. Contribution a la classification des Geotrypidae (Col.). Annales de la
Société Entomologique de France, 79: 333-350.

Bunalski, M. 1999. Die Blatthornkdfer Mitteleuropas. Coleoptera, Scarabaeoidea.
Bestimmung—Verbreitung—Okologie. 80 pp. Slamka, Bratislava.

Carpaneto, G.M., Maltzeff, P., Piattella, E. & Francchinelli, L. 2001. Nuovi reperti di coleotteri
lamellicorni della tenuta presidenziale di Castelporziano e delle aree limitrofe (Coleoptera,
Lamellicornia). Bollettino dell’Associazione Romana di Entomologia, 56: 311-329.

Carpaneto, G.M., Maltzeff, P., Piattella, E. & Pontuale, G. 1998. I coleotteri lamellicorni della
tenuta presidenziale di Castelporziano e delle aree limitrofe (Coleoptera, Lamellicornia).
Bollettino dell’'Associazione Romana di Entomologia, 52: 9-54.

Carpaneto, G.M. & Piattella, E. 1995. Coleoptera Polyphaga V (Lucanoidea, Scarabaeoidea).
Checklist delle Specie della Fauna Italiana, 50: 1-18.

Chandra, K. 1996. Bolboceras quadridens (Fabricius), a beetle new to the Andaman Islands,
India. Malayan Nature Journal, 50: 107-108.

Duff, A. 1993. Beetles of Somerset, their status and distribution. 269 pp. Somerset Archaeo-
logical & Natural History Society, Taunton.

Endrodi, S. 1956. Lemezecsapu bogarak Lamellicornia. Fauna Hungariae, 12: \-188.

Fabricius, I.C. 1781. Species Insectorum . . ., vol. 1. vil, 494 pp. Bohnii, Hamburgi et Kilonii.

Frank, J. & Konzelmann, E. 2002. Die Kafer Baden-Wiirttembergs 1950-2000. 290 pp.
Landesanstalt fiir Umweltschutz Baden Wirttemberg, Karlsruhe.

Geiser, E. 2001. Die Kafer des Landes Salzburg. Monographs on Coleoptera, 2: 1-706.

Gmelin, J.F. 1788. Caroli a Linné . . . systema naturae per regna tria naturae . . ., vol. | Beer,
Lipsiae.

Giirlich, S., Suikat, R. & Ziegler, W. 1995. Katalog der Kafer Schleswig-Holsteins und des
Niederelbegebietes. Verhandlungen des Vereins fiir Naturwissenschaftliche Heimatfor-
schung zu Hamburg, 41: 1-111.

Hansen, M. 1996. Katalog over Danmarks biller [second part]. Entomologiske Meddelelser, 64:
113-231.

Hildt, L.F. 1892. Przyczynek do fauny chrzaszezow podolskich. Pamigtnik Fizyograficzny,
12(3): 209-235.

Hildt, L.F. 1896. Zuki czyli Gnojowce Krajove. Pamietnik Fizyograficzny, 14(3): 153-228.

Horn, G.H. 1870. Notes on some Genera of Coprophagous Scarabaeidae of the United States.
Transactions of the American Entomological Society, 3: 42-51.

Hyman, P.S. & Parsons, M.S. 1992. UK Nature Conservation No. 3. 4 review of the scarce and
threatened Coleoptera of Great Britain, part 1. 11, 484 pp. UK Joint Nature Conservation
Committee, Peterborough.

Jameson, M.L. 2002. Geotrupidae Latreille 1802. Pp. 23-27 in: Arnett, R.H., Thomas, M.C.,
Skelley, P.-E. & Frank, J.H. (Eds.), American beetles, vol. 2. Polyphaga: Scarabaeoidea
through Curculionoidea. CRC, Boca Raton.

Janssens, A. 1960. Insectes Coléoptéres Lamellicornes. Faune de Belgique. 411 pp. Institut
Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Bruxelles.

Jaszay, T. 2001. Chrobaky (Coleoptera) Narodného Parku Poloniny. 234 pp. Statna ochrana
prirody SR Banska Bystrica Sprava Narodného parku Poloniny, Snina.

Kahlen, M. & Hellrigl, K. 1996. Coleoptera—K fer (Deck- oder Hartfliigler). Pp. 393-511 in
Hellrigl, K., Die Tierwelt Siidtirols. Kommentiertes systematisch-faunistisches Verzeichnis
der auf dem Gebiet der Provinz Bozen—Siidtirol (Italien) bekannten Tierarten.
Naturmuseum Siidtirol, Bozen.

Kalisiak, J. 1996. Bawolec, Odonteus armiger (Scopoli, 1772) w Lesie Lagiewnickim
(Coleoptera: Geotrupidae: . Bolbocerini: Odonteus Samouelle, 1919). Biuletyn
Entomologiczny Lodz, 3(15): 1-2.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003 309

Kinelski, S. & Szujecki, A. 1959. Materialy do poznania chrzaszczy (Coleoptera) fauny
krajowe]. Polskie Pismo Entomologiczne, 29: 215-250.

Klausnitzer, B. & Krell, F.-T. 1996. 6. Uberfamilie: Scarabaeoidea. Pp. 11-89 im: Klausnitzer,
B., Die Larven der Kafer Mitteleuropas. 3. Band. Polyphaga Teil 2. Fischer, Jena.

Klug, F. 1845. Die Coleopteren-Gattungen: Athyreus und Bolboceras, dargestellt nach den in
der Sammlung hiesiger K6nigl. Universitat davon vorhandenen Arten. Abhandlungen der
KG6niglichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1843: 21—57.

Koch, K. 1991. Die Kafer Mitteleuropas. Okologie, vol. 2. 382 pp. Goecke & Evers, Krefeld.

Kohler, F. & Klausnitzer, B. (Eds.). 1998. Verzeichnis der Kafer Deutschlands. Entomologische
Nachrichten und Berichte, Beiheft, 4: \-185.

Kral, D. 1993. Geotrupidae. P. 67 in Jelinek, J. (Ed.), Check-list of Czechoslovak Insects 4
(Coleoptera). Seznam ceskoslovenskych brouku (Folia Heyrovskyana, Supplementum 1).
Praha.

Krell, F.-T. 1991. Odonteobolca nom. noy. for Odonteus Agassiz, [1838] (Osteichthyes,
Perciformes). Bulletin du Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, section C, (4)12: 351-352.

Krell, F.-T. 1993. Die Lamellicornia (Coleoptera) der Kafersammlung Paul Dolderer im
Museum Schloss Hellenstein, Heidenheim an der Brenz, Bundesrepublik Deutschland.
Mitteilungen, Entomologischer Verein Stuttgart, 28: 22-42.

Krell, F.-T. 1994. Chorologische und taxonomische Notizen uber stideuropaische und
nordafrikanische Lamellicornia (Coleoptera). Mitteilungen des Internationalen Entomolo-
gischen Vereins, 19: 5-19.

Krell, F.-T. 1995. Die Lamellicornia (Coleoptera) der Kafersammlung Dr. Theodor Hitieber in
den Naturkundlichen Sammlungen der Stadt Ulm, Bundesrepublik Deutschland.
Mitteilungen des Vereins ftir Naturwissenschaft und Mathematik Ulm/Donau, 36137:
49-87.

Krell, F.-T. 1996. Die Kafer-Fauna (Coleoptera) des oberen Wiesaz-Tales sowie des ehemali-
gen Militargelandes Listhof und der alten Erddeponie bei Reutlingen. Ergebnisse der
Exkursionen 1990 der Arbeitsgemeinschaft stidwestdeutscher Koleopterologen und
weiterer Aufsammlungen. Mitteilungen, Entomologischer Verein Stuttgart, 31: 3-56.

Krell, F.-T. 2001. Der erste Farbatlas mitteleuropaischer Scarabaeoidea. Entomologische
Nachrichten und Berichte, 45: 246-248.

Krell, F.-T. & Fery, H. 1992. Familienreihe Lamellicornia. Pp. 250-252 in Lohse, G.A. &
Lucht, W., Die Kafer Mitteleuropas, vol. 13. Goecke & Evers, Krefeld.

Krikken, J. 1978. The Afro-Asian Bolboceroides validus group (Coleoptera: Geotrupidae).
Zoologische Mededelingen, 52: 301-311.

Krikken, J. 1979. The genus Bolbocerosoma Schaeffer in Asia (Coleoptera: Geotrupidae).
Zoologische Mededelingen, 54: 35-51.

Krikken, J. 1984. A generic reclassification of the afrotropical Bolboceratini (Coleoptera:
Geotrupidae). Zoologische Mededelingen, 58: 23-45.

Landin, B.-O. 1957. Skalbaggar. Coleoptera. Bladhorningar. Lamellicornia. Svensk
Insektfauna, 9: 1-155.

Lo Cascio, P. 2001. Trogidae, Geotrupidae, Aphodiidae, Melolonthidae, Dynastidae, Ceto-
niidae. Pp. 173-189 in Sforzi, A. & Bartolozzi, L. (Ed.), Libro Rosso degli Insetti della
Toscana. 375 pp. Arsia, Firenze.

Lopez-Colon, J.I. & Bahillo de la Puebla, P. 1997. Registros en el Pais Vasco de Odonteus
armiger (Scopoli, 1772). Boletin de la Sociedad Entomologica Aragonesa, 19: 55.

Lopez-Colon, J.I., Gonzalez Pena, C.F. & Beltran Valen, J.R. 1996. Familias: Geotrupidae,
Ochodaeidae, Hybosoridae, Glaresidae y Trogidae. Catalogue de la Entomofauna
Aragonesa, 12: 3-14.

Luigioni, P. 1929. 7 Coleotteri d'Italia. Memorie della Pont. Accademia delle Scienze Nuovi
Lincei, (2)13.

Lundberg, S. 1986. Catalogus Coleopteroruwm Sueciae. 155 pp. Entomologiska Foreningen i
Stockholm och Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet, Stockholm.

Machatschke, J.W. 1969. Familienreihe Lamellicornia. Pp. 265-371 in Freude, H., Harde,
K.W. & Lohse, G.A., Die Kafer Mitteleuropas, 8. Goecke & Evers, Krefeld.

310 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003

Marsham, T. 1802. Coleoptera Britannica, sistens Insecta Coleoptera Britanniae Indigena . . .

xxxi, 547 pp. White, Londini.

Martin-Piera, F. & Lopez-Colon, J.I. 2000. Coleoptera Scarabaeoidea. Fauna Iherica, 14:

1-526 pp.

Melloni, L. & Landi, E. 1997. Nuovi dati corologici sui Coleotteri Lucanoidea e Scarabaeoidea

saprocoprophagi della Romagna (Insecta, Coleoptera). Quaderno di Studi e Notizie di

Storia Naturale della Romagna, 7: 23-37.

Mittal, I.C. 1981. Scarabaeids of Harayana and surrounding areas. Bulletin of Entomology, 22:

35-40.

Mittal, I.C. 1998. New record of genus Odontaeus Klug (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Geotrupi-

nae) with a new species from Oriental region. Journal of Entomological Research, 22:

385-386.

Mittal, I.C. 2000. Survey of scarabaeid (Coleoptera) fauna of Himachal Pradesh (India).

Journal of Entomological Research, 24: 259-269.

Mitter, H. 2000. Die Kaferfauna Oberésterreichs (Coleoptera: Heteromera und Lamellicor-

nia). Beitrdge zur Naturkunde Oberésterreichs, 8: 1-192.

Nadai, L. & Merkl, O. 1999. Scarabaeoidea (Coleoptera) from the Aggtelek National Park. Pp.

215-220 in Mahunka, S. (Ed.), The Fauna of the Aggtelek National Park I. Hungarian

Natural History Museum, Budapest.

Nikolajev, G.V. 1979. Neue Gattungen und Untergattungen der Blatthornkafer (Coleoptera,
Scarabaeidae). Reichenbachia, 17: 189-191. ;

Nikolaev, G.V. 1980. Novye svedeniya o faune, sinonimii 1 rasprostranenu plastinchatousikh
Kazakhstana. Trudy Instituta Zoologii Akademiya Nauk Kazakhskoi SSR, 39: 64-66.

Nikolaev, G.V. 1987. Plastinchatousye Zhuki (Coleoptera, Scarabaeoidea) Kazakhstana i
Srednei Azii. 232 pp. Nauka, Alma-Ata.

Nikritskii, N.B., Osipov, I.N., Chemeris, M.V., Semenoy, V.B. & Gusakoy, A.A. 1996.
Zhestkokrylye-ksilobionty, mitsetobionty i plastinchatousye Prikosgo-Terrasnogo bios-
fernogo zapovednika (s obzorom fauny etich grupp Moskovskoi oblasti). 111 pp.
Moskovskogo Universiteta, Moskva.

Panzer, G.W.F. 1793. Fauna Insectorum Germanicae . . ., vol. 12. Niirnberg.

Paulian, R. 1959. Coléoptéres Scarabéides (Deuxiéme édition, revue et augmenteée). Faune de
France, 63: 1-298.

Paulian, R. & Baraud, J. 1982. Faune des Coléoptéres de France. II. Lucanoidea et
Scarabaeoidea. Encyclopédie Entomologique, 43: 1-478.

Reitter, E. 1893. Bestimmungs-Tabelle der Lucaniden und coprophagen Lamellicornen des
palaearctischen Faunengebietes. Verhandhingen des Naturforschenden Vereines in Briinn,
21: 3-109.

Rheinheimer, J. 2000. Die Kaferfauna des Eandkreises Karlsruhe und einiger angrenzender
Gebiete. Mitteilingen, Entomologischer Verein Stuttgart, 35: 2-141, 143.

Réssner, E. 1996. Checklist der Blatthornkaéfer (Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea) Thiiringens.
Check-Listen Thiiringer Insekten, 4: 47-53.

Schaefer, M. 2002. Brohmer~ Fauna von Deutschland. Ein Bestimmungsbuch unserer heimischen
Tierwelt. 21 Ed. xiv, 791 pp. Quelle & Meyer, Wiebelsheim.

Schulze, J. 1992. Blatthornkafer (Scarabaeidae) und Hirschkafer (Lucanidae). Pp. 181-183 in
Landesumweltamt (Bearb.), Gefdihrdete Tiere im Land Brandenburg. Rote Liste. Ministe-
rium fiir Umwelt, Naturschutz und Raumordnung des Landes Brandenburg, Potsdam.

Shirt, D.B. 1986. Scarabaeoidea recording scheme. Stag beetles, dung beetles and chafers. 8 pp.
Biological Records Centre, Huntingdon.

Shirt, D.B. 1987. British Red Data Books, vol. 2, Insects. Nature Conservancy Council.

Silfverberg, H. 1992. Enumeratio Coleopterorum Fennoscandiae, Daniae et Baltiae. V, 94 pp.
Helsingin Hyénteisvaihtoyhdistys, Helsinki.

Sim, R.J. 1930. Scarabaeidae, Coleoptera; Observations on species unrecorded or little-known
in New Jersey. Journal of the New York Entomological Society, 38: 139-147.

Telnoy, D., Barsevskis, A., Savich, F., Kovalevsky, F., Berdnikoy, S., Voronin, M., Cibulskis, R.

& Ratniece, D. 1997. Check-List of Latvian Beetles (Insecta: Coleoptera). Mitteilungen des

Internationalen Entomologischen Vereins, Supplement, 5: 1-140.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003 311

Westwood, J.O. 1855. On the Australian Species of the Coleopterous Genus Bolboceras, Kirby.
Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, 21: 11-18.

Yaday, J.S., Pillai, R.K. & Yaday, A.S. 1990. Karyotypic study of some scarab beetles with
comments on phylogeny (Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea). Elytron, 4: 41—S1.

Zimsen, E. 1964. The type material of I. C. Fabricius. 656 pp. Munksgaard, Copenhagen.

Zunino, M. 1984. Sistematica generica dei Geotrupinae (Coleoptera, Scarabaeoidea: Geotru-
pidae), filogenesi della sottofamiglia e considerazioni biogeografiche. Bollettino del Museo
Regionale di Scienze Naturali Torino, 2: 9-162.

Comments on the proposed conservation of the specific name Papilio eurymedon
Lucas, 1852 (Insecta, Lepidoptera)
(Case 3222: see BZN 59: 114-116; 204)

(1) Andrew Wakeham-Dawson (Executive Secretary)
L.C.Z.N., clo The Natural History Museum, London SW7 SBD, U.K.

Even though this application involves a situation in which reversal of precedence
does not require Commission action (see Article 23.9.2), the case was brought to the
Commission for suppression of the senior name in response to Recommendation 23A
of the Code. Before the Commission can vote on the issue of suppression, the authors
must show evidence that the conditions of Article 23.9.1.2 have been met. The junior
name, Papilio eurymedon Lucas, 1852, must have been used in at least 25 works,
published by at least 10 authors in the immediately preceding 50 years and
encompassing a span of not less than 10 years.

This evidence was presented in the original application, but incorrectly edited from
the published version. In addition to references published with the application, the
evidence that the conditions of Article 23.9.1.2 are met in this case is as follows: Dos
Passos (1964, p. 36), Emmel & Emmel (1973, p. 15), Lewis (1973, p. 12), Howe (1975,
p. 400), Tyler (1975, p. 81), Orsak (1977, p. 66), Dornfield (1980, p. 42), Ferris &
Brown (1980, p. 188), Miller & Brown (1981, p. 67), Hodges et al. (1983, p. 50),
Beutelspacher (1984, p. 62), Collins & Morris (1985, p. 84), Emmel (1991, p. 69),
Brown et al. (1992, p. 54), Emmel et al. (1992, p. 47), Feltwell (1992, p. 28), Miller
(1992, p. 40), Feltwell (1993, p. 58), Stanford & Opler (1993, p. 109), Toliver et al.
(1994, p. 121), Tyler et al. (1994, pl. 94), Bird et al. (1995, p. 107), Llorente et al.
(1997, p. 52), Layberry et al. (1998, p. 89), plus numerous other scientific papers and
popular field guides to western American butterflies of the past fifty years.

In the light of this evidence, the name Papilio eurymedon Lucas, 1852 is a nomen
protectum under the conditions of Article 23.9.2 of the Code and the name Papilio
antinous Donovan, 1805, which has never been used, is a nomen oblitum.

Additional references

Beutelspacher-R., C. 1984. Mariposas de Mexico. 128 pp., 20 pls. La Prensa Medica Mexicana,
Mexico City.

Bird, C.D., Hilchie, G.J., Kondla, N.G., Pike, E.M. & Sperling, F.A.H. 1995. Alberta butterflies.
347 pp. Provincial Museum of Alberta, Edmonton.

Brown, J.W., Real, H.G. & Faulkner, D.K. 1992. Butterflies of Baja California: faunal survey,
natural history, conservation biology. 129 pp., 8 pls. Lepidoptera Research Foundation,
Beverley Hills.

312 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003

Collins, N.M. & Morris, M.G. 1985. Threatened swallowtail butterflies of the world: the IUCN
Red Data Book. 401 pp.. 8 pls. UCN, Gland.

Dornfeld, E.J. 1980. The butterflies of Oregon. 276 pp., 48 pls. Timber Press, Portland.

Dos Passos, C.F. 1964. A synonymic list of the Nearctic Rhopalocera. Lepidopterists’ Society
Memoirs, 1: 1-145.

Emmel, T.C. 1991. Butterflies. 144 pp. Mallard Press, New York.

Emmel, T.C. & Emmel, J.F. 1973. The butterflies of Southern California. The Natural History
Museum of Los Angeles County Science Series, 26: 1-148.

Emmel, T.C., Minno, M.C. & Drummond, B.A. 1992. Florissant butterflies: a guide to the fossil
and present-day species of Central Colorado. 118 pp., 9 pls. Stanford University Press.
Stanford.

Feltwell, J. 1992. Butterflies of North America. 192 pp. Smithmark, New York.

Feltwell, J. 1993. The encyclopedia of butterflies. 288 pp. Quarto Publishing, London.

Ferris, C.D. & Brown, F.M. 1980. Butterflies of the Rocky Mountain States. 442 pp.. 4 pls.
University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Hodges, R.W., Dominick, T., Davis, D.R., Ferguson, D.C., Franclemont, J.G., Munroe, E.G. &
Powell, J.A. (Eds.). 1983. Check list of the Lepidoptera of America north of Mexico,
including Greenland. 284 pp. E.W. Classey & Wedge Entomological Research Foundation,
London.

Howe, W.H. 1975. The butterflies of North America. 633 pp., 97 pls. Doubleday, Garden City.

Layberry, R.A., Hall, P.W. & Lafontaine, J.D. 1998. The butterflies of Canada. 354 pp., 32 pls.
University of Toronto Press, Toronto.

Lewis, H.L. 1973. Butterflies of the world. 328 pp., 208 pls. Harrap, London.

Llorente-B., J.E., Onate-O., L., Luis-M., A. & Vargas-F., I. 1997. Papilionidae y Pieridae de
Mexico: distribucion geografica e ilustracion. 229 pp. Universidad Nacional Autonoma de
México, Mexico City.

Miller, J. 1992. The common names of North American butterflies. 177 pp. Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington.

Miller, L.D. & Brown, F.M. 1981. A catalogue/checklist of the butterflies of America north of
Mexico. Lepidopterists’ Society Memoirs, 2: 1-280.

Orsak, L.J. 1977. The butterflies of Orange County, California. Museum of Systematic
Biology, University of California Research Series, 4: \-349.

Stanford, R.E. & Opler, P.A. 1993. Atlas of Western U.S.A. butterflies, including adjacent parts
of Canada and Mexico. 275 pp. Denver.

Toliver, M.E., Holland, R. & Cary, S.J. 1994. Distribution of butterflies in New Mexico
(Lepidoptera: Hesperioidea and Papilionoidea). 329 pp. Albuquerque.

Tyler, H.A. 1975. The Swallowtail butterflies of North America. 192 pp.,.16 pls. Naturegraph
Publishers, Healdsburg. i

Tyler, H.A., Brown, K.S. Jr. & Wilson, K.A. 1994. Swallowtail butterflies of the Americas.
376 pp., 157 pls. Scientific Publishers, Gainesville.

(2) Neal L. Evenhuis
Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii 96817-2704, U.S.A.

This case presents an application to suppress the name Papilio antinous Donovan,
1805, in favour of the younger name, Papilio eurymedon Lucas, 1852. The authors
make a well-presented case for reversal of precedence (Article 23.9), which does not
have to be brought before the Commission since it meets the conditions of Articles
23.9.1.1 and 23.9.1.2 (see the comment above). However, in bringing a case for
suppression to the Commission (as per Recommendation 23A) they unfortunately do
not give any justification for such action of the name antinous. Without knowing why
the name must be suppressed rather than just using reversal of precedence, I cannot
support this application.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003 313

Comment on the proposed conservation of usage of the names Phymaturus
Gravenhorst, 1837 and Lacerta palluma Molina, 1782 (currently Phymaturus
palluma; Reptilia, Sauria) by designation of a neotype for Lacerta palluma
(Case 3225; see BZN 60: 38-41, 58, 220)

Alberto Veloso
Department of Ecology, Faculty of Science, University of Chile, Santiago, Chile

Herman Nunez
National Museum of Natural History, Santiago, Chile

José M. Cei
Faculty of Agricultural Science, National University of Cuyo, Mendoza, Argentina

We do not support this application to the Commission. The proposed action
attempts to confirm a mistake made by many authors since 1837, who have given to
a liolaemine iguanid lizard the specific name that Molina (1782) clearly proposed for
a teud lizard.

We agree with the arguments in paras. | and 3-6 of the application, but we
strongly reject those in the remaining paragraphs. In para. 2, the nomenclatural
vicissitudes of Lacerta palluma Molina, 1782 have been summarized in shortened and
unsatisfactory terms. Molina’s taxon was not misidentified by Gravenhorst (1837)
but by Daudin (1802) who introduced a spiny verticillate tail not mentioned by
Molina; this character was later used by Gravenhorst when establishing Phymaturus.

As Lacerta palluma Molina, 1782 is a senior synonym of the tetid lizard Callopistes
maculatus Gravenhorst, 1837, Veloso, Nunez & Cei (2000) designated a neotype
(accession number 2909, National Museum of Natural History, Santiago, Chile) in
order to give taxonomic stability to the name Callopistes palluma (Molina, 1782),
under Article 75(d) of the third edition of the Code (in force when we wrote the
paper). In the light of Article 86.1.2 of the current (fourth edition) of the Code, we
stress the fact that our 2000 paper was actually submitted for publication prior to
1 January 2000, even though it was published after this date. The other taxon,
Phymaturus flagellifer (Bell, 1843), also referred to in Case 3225, was indirectly
stabilized by the fixation of the above mentioned neotype.

We cannot agree with the suggested designation (para. 8) of the specimen
BMNH-1946.829.84, the holotype of Centrura flagellifer Bell, 1843, as a neotype for
Lacerta palluma Molina, 1782. This action seems to us to be based on a very
subjective choice of how to achieve ‘nomenclatural stability’.

The recent examples (since 1982) of the usage of Phymaturus palluma (Molina,
1782) reported in the application can be easily balanced with an equivalent number
of citations of Phymaturus flagellifer and Callopistes palluma. The Commission holds
a list of 17 examples, including Cei (1986), Veloso & Navarro (1988), Castro et al.
(1991), Habit & Ortiz (1994), Inzunza et al. (1998), Morando et al. (2001) and Cei &
Videla (2003).

We think that the request to conserve the existing usage of the generic name
Phymaturus Gravenhorst, 1837 and the specific name Lacerta palluma Molina, 1782

314 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003

is both unfit and unnecessary. In our opinion, no action is required by the
Commission other than to reject the proposals made in this application.

Additional references

Castro, S.A., Jimenez, J.E. & Jaksic, F.M. 1991. Diet of the racerunner Callopistes palluma in
north-central Chile. Journal of Herpetology, 25: 127-129.

Cei, J.M. 1986. Reptiles del Centro, Centro-Oeste y Sur de Argentina. Monograph 4. 527 pp.
Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali, Torino.

Cei, JM. & Videla, F. 2003. A new Phymaturus species from Volcanic Cordilleran Mountains
of the South-Western Mendoza province, Argentina (Liolaemidae, Iguania, Reptilia).
Bollettino Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali, Torino, 20(2).

Daudin, F.M. 1802. Histoire naturelle des Reptiles, vol. 3. 452 pp. Paris.

Habit, E.M. & Ortiz, J.C. 1994. Home range of Phymaturus flagellifer (Reptilia,
Tropiduridae). Boletin de la Sociedad de Biologia de Concepcion, Chile, 65: 191-195.
Inzunza, O., Barros, Z. & Bravo, H. 1998. Organizacion topografica y areas especializadas en
la retina de Callopistes palluma: capa de células ganglionares. Revista Chilena de

Anatomia, 16: 109-115.

Morando, M., Guerreiro, A.C. & Avila, L.J. 2001. Estudios citogenéticos en lagartos del género
Phymaturus (Iguanidae, Tropidurinae): cariotipo e mecanismos de determinacion sexual en
poblaciones del noroeste patagonico. Salta 67 [Proceedings of IV Congress of Argentinian
Herpetology].

Veloso, A. & Navarro, J. 1988. Lista sistematica y distribucion geografica de anfibios y reptiles
de Chile. Bollettino Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali, Torino, 6(2): 481-539.

Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Vespertilio nanus
Peters, 1852 (currently Pipistrellus nanus; Mammalia, Chiroptera)
(Case 3240; see BZN 60: 42-44)

Victor Van Cakenberghe

Department of Biology, Universiteit Antwerpen, Universiteitsplein 1,
B-2610 Antwerpen ( Wilrijk), Belgium

I work on African bats (e.g. Van Cakenberghe & De Vree, 1999) and am uncertain
that the specific names of Pipistrellus africanus (Ruppell, 1842) and Pipistrellus nanus
(Peters, 1852) are in fact synonyms.-For this reason, I oppose the proposal to
suppress the specific name of P. africanus and suggest that both names be conserved.
Although I agree with Meredith Happold that P. nanus should be given precedence
over P. africanus when the two names are considered to be synonyms. The name
P. nanus has been more widely used than P. africanus (281 publications v. 24 during
the period 1840-2003; the Commission Secretariat holds these references).

However, there is taxonomic evidence that these two names actually refer to two
different taxa. For example, if the dimensions of the P. africanus lectotype are
compared with those of P. nanus specimens from north-eastern Africa we see that
P. africanus fits within the ranges for most of the dimensions. Nonetheless, it is
marginally larger than the maximum values found for P. nanus for the length of the
maxillary toothrow, the width across the upper molars, the length of the mandibula,
and the length of the tibia.

A number of authors (e.g. Cotterill, 1996; Kearney & Taylor, 1997) point out that
the systematics of this group of African bats are still not entirely clear, and they

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003 315

indicate that a revision of the genus is required, especially as north-eastern Africa is
a region with a large degree of endemicity. To prevent the potentially valid name
P. africanus being suppressed, I suggest an alternative proposal to the Commission.
The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to give the name manus Peters, 1852, as published in
the binomen Vespertilio nanus, precedence over the name africanus Ruppell,

1842, as published in the trinomen Vespertilio pipistrellus africanus, whenever

the two names are considered to be synonyms;

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:

(a) nanus Peters, 1852, as published in the binomen Vespertilio nanus, with the
endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the name africanus
Rtppell, 1842, as published in the trinomen Vespertilio pipistrellus
africanus, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms;

(b) africanus Riippell, 1842, as published in the trinomen Vespertilio pipistrel-
lus africanus, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over
the name nanus Peters, 1852, as published in the binomen Vespertilio nanus,
whenever the two are considered to be synonyms.

Additional references

Cotterill, F.P.D. 1996. New distributional records of insectivorous bats of the families
Nycteridae, Rhinolophidae and Vespertilionidae (Microchiroptera: Mammalia) in
Zimbabwe. Arnoldia Zimbabwe, 10(8): 71-89.

Kearney, T. & Taylor, P.J. 1997. New distribution records of bats in KwaZulu-Natal. Durban
Museum Novitates, 22: 53-56.

Van Cakenberghe, V. & De Vree, F. 1999. Systematics of African Nycteris (Mammalia:
Chiroptera), part 3: the Nycteris thebaica group. Bonner zoologische Beitrage, 48(2):
123-166.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003

AUTHORS IN VOLUME 60 (2003)

316

Page
ACOStas LIB sve ice te eye tal oe 113
Alonso-Zarazaga, M.A. . . 144, 275, 303
JNLARAS TSE IRIS oo co bn oo 143
Alvarez, B. aS ad ial 16, 300
PSN AUS, RIBS go 5) be 9 6 127
Balleniosy AS 303
Bank, R.A. 5 Sl
Bartak, M. saci hatn Aei ala 2 203
Bartels\@: 24s, Sak Pee eee > o AG)
elem, Cie, sc 25 0 3 Dl, NBA isp
Bertling, M. . ie cers
BilyiS aan eitte Cacia as ee eee 218
BogansAGBs woe. fe 103, 301
Bouchet, P. : 5 YY)
Boyko,€... . 119
Braddys.Si, ae = cee 141
ates, IDIBGs oo o 6 uc 269
Bromley, R.G. . . 141
(CTL AULIY line tea Seach auingelehecn etal 5 313
Ghainey lS gts, ah Gon Cees tr 145
Cordeiro, J.R. Se. 5 ee ko ee 7)
CorlissnTiOne Paaae pase . 48
@oxall:, (Figs 3S mecreieie: Poet: 182
@unimin'es EV ee 2 33)
Debrenne sheen _ 12
Demathieu, G.D.. . . 141
Doveal EV Al Fe as ri eae eee 266
Dra gescOrU ei sh Seay oe ape 143
Dunham, A.E. . . 45
Engel iMitSony vat tay se es ee 119
ESpinozagk@b is ea eee . 58
Etherid gegRe erie aed eee > Se
Evenhuis, N.L. . 312
Balkneri Geena os ane meray cee FOIL
Betis ees SPCSS ERS PRE 98
GaubertiRe Py ea Aer. ics Seda ee 45
Gittenbersery Eee 5 Il
Giustiihey ym hes 5 SY
Gohlich UE ee ee 211
Grail Way See ae 301
Grygiers Mule ty eave lee ae oo Ge)
Gusmao, Wil sc 5 oo 5 co ol) ARK IGM
IsepPOGL Mg 5 5 6 5 bo oo . 42
Iskini@iy IMIS, os a0 cece o 26, 117
lnm, IL ISG 3 6 6 oo 5 6 6 191
Holston Qke€ tien AE a eee 198

Page
Holthuis, L.B.. . 300
ELolynskis/Re Bae eee = 5. oe pO
Elolznagel AWE Esse hee 300
Irwin MsRS 2) ea) Ss 2 eee 198
YaGhs MiAc 9 tama ty ioe ee 284
Jédicke, R. 272
KadolskysiD ii 9 ae ae ee 302
KOCKMID ah "Ee? pare ee 45
KozlovgiIMiVe.2,5:() Sey ae 290,
Krell BAe tie acvee cae ae 127, 303
Rérishnias Kereta ue is eae tea ae 119
Karuses PAD eee set a ee 12
WastuvkatZ.e ot hay, Seater eae DS
Isyale CR Gl ke eee rae 144, 275
MacRae. EC... ee ae 218
Manganelli\ Gare) saree 52
Mannki ery. Myc s tela. a nr 127
Mates JiR scien ree 127
IMiaiiionr, Ci, 5 ss 5 6 « 113
INic@ord=\Webaneeaee wea AES
Messin 85) Cayr0 ogre wee Pee 293
IMblMaoIK BIL. 2 5 ee 109
MikoilasoRe\ cn cee ee 141
Minton, R.L. meet aes a 103, 302
Mourer-Chauviré, C.. . . 211
Whitin, IR, 6 a a 5 = 135
Neto, 1.D.daS. . . 217
Nielsen, J.K. tea 141
INieukerkens! EJs, vanienne eee 54
INOntOny Gk. ieee 297
INUINGZ EL ge oy cys Ee 313
Raepker Hed. a: Soe es ee eee 220
Patterson, D.J. 297
Retersen’a Vib =a ene 23
nnitchard yb Gar sa 208
INGimgEMy IDE G98 .S6S S so 8 6 297
IRimakneny, AWS, 6 o 5 6 6 5 6 6 c 141
RutzlervkKe Vee Ree ts, ee 99
Sakaliani nV sts ite cones te 143, 217
Savapew J Mis se ue ees Om ISS
Schindlerns eae 206
SchliriiVlwes 5 ose ee eae lai
SchulkegMe ws Rist bane eee 287
ShaverdossVanaerne eee 284

Shinohara, A.
Sikora, J.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003

Sasa LUN eh Ge me

Sleigh, M.A. .

Slyusarev, ES. —
Smetana, A... .

Song, W.

Staeck, W.
Stuart, C.
Stuart.
Sundholm, A.

Taylor, P.J.

Thompson, aC.
Thompson, F.G. .
Thompson, R.T.

Thorne, J. .
Todd, J.A.

Tranier, M. . .

Dubbs} PK 25

Uchman, A... .

Van Cakenberghe, V.. . .

van Nieukerken, E.J. .
Wala WOlids ¢ sa 0%

Veloso, A.
Veron, G.

Viitasaari, M. . . .

Vikberg, V. . .
Vockeroth, J.R.
Volkovitsh, M.G.

Wakeham-Dawson, A.

Westcott, R.L.
Weygoldt, P.
Willan, R.C. :
Wozencraft, W.C.

Zarske, A.

Zhuravlev, AYu. apye

Ziani, S.

318 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003

NAMES PLACED ON THE OFFICIAL LISTS AND INDEXES IN RULINGS OF
THE COMMISSION PUBLISHED IN VOLUME 60 (2003)

Names placed on the Official Lists and Indexes in Volume 60 are listed below,
together with names already on the Official Lists and Indexes and emended in
Volume 60. Entries on the Official Lists are in bold type and those on the Official
Indexes in non-bold type.

aberrans, Philonthus, Cameron, 1932 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
aberrans, Philonthus, Sharp, 1876 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
Acanthotermes Sj6stedt, 1900 (Isoptera) Op. 2038
ACANTHOTERMITINAE Sjéstedt, 1926 (Isoptera) Op. 2038
acanthothorax, Termes, SjOstedt, 1898 (Isoptera) Op. 2038
ACENTROPINAE Stephens, 1835 (Lepidoptera) Op. 2021
Acentropus Curtis, 1834 (Lepidoptera) Op. 2021
Achatinellastrum Pfeiffer, 1854 (Gastropoda) Op. 2017
ACHATINELLIDAE Gulick, 1873 (Gastropoda) Op. 2017
Acrostomum Orsted, 1843 (Nemertea) Op. 2016 -

acutum, Cyclostoma, Draparnaud, 1805 (Gastropoda) Op. 2034
aegagrus, Capra, Erxleben, 1777 (Mammalia) Op. 2027
affinis, Staphylinus, Paykull, 1789 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
affinis, Staphylinus, Solsky, 1868 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
africanus, Equus, Heuglin & Fitzinger, 1866 (Mammalia) Op. 2027
Akrostomum Grube, 1840 (Nemertea) Op. 2016

alacris, Lycosa, C.L. Koch, 1833 (Arachnida) Op. 2049
Alexandrograptus Pribyl, 1981 (Graptolithina) Op. 2023
Alopecosa Simon, 1885 (Arachnida) Op. 2049

Ammotrecha Banks, 1900 (Arachnida) Op. 2050
Ammotrechula Roewer, 1934 (Arachnida) Op. 2050

analis, Philonthus, Erichson, 1840 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
angustatus, Staphylinus, Geoffroy, 1785 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
angustatus, Staphylinus, Solier, 1849 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
aperea, Cavia, Erxleben, 1777 (Mammalia) Op. 2027

Aphanius Nardo, 1827 (Osteichthyes) Op. 2057

apicalis, Tachinus, Erichson, 1839 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
arnee, Bos, Kerr, 1792 (Mammalia) Op. 2027

atheroidea, Lissatrypa, Twenhofel,.1914 (Brachiopoda) Op. 2022
atricapillus, Oxytelus, Germar, 1825 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
atrum, Omalium, Casey, 1894 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053

atrum, Omalium, Heer, 1839 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
auricomus, Staphylinus, Cameron, 1929 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
australasiae, Scorpio, Fabricius, 1775 (Scorpiones) Op. 2037
australis, Chorista, Klug, 1838 (Mecoptera) Op. 2047
australis, Philonthus, Cameron, 1943 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
australis, Philonthus, MacLeay, 1873 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
axillaris, Tachinus, Erichson, 1839 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
axillaris, Tachinus, Gravenhorst, 1806 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003 319

bactrianus, Camelus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Mammalia) Op. 2059
basteri, Acarus, Johnston, 1836 (Arachnida) Op. 2051

bicolor, Philonthus, Fauvel, 1903 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053

bicolor, Staphylinus, Laporte, 1835 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
bicornis, Oxytelus, Germar, 1823 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
bicornis, Oxytelus, Olivier, 1811 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
biguttatus, Staphylinus, Bernhauer, 1937 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
biguttatus, Staphylinus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
binotatus, Staphylinus, Gravenhorst, 1802 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
binotatus, Staphylinus, Gravenhorst, 1806 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
brevipenne, Omalium, Motschulsky, 1860 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
brunneus, Tachinus, Erichson, 1839 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
brunneus, Tachinus, Ullrich, 1975 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
Bulimina d’Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminifera) Op. 2018

Bulimina Ehrenberg, 1831 (Gastropoda) Op. 2018
BULIMINIDAE Jones in Griffith & Henfrey, 1875 (Foraminifera) Op. 2018
BULIMINIDAE Kobelt, 1880 (Gastropoda) Op. 2018
BULIMINIDAE Pfeiffer, 1879 (Gastropoda) Op. 2018
BULIMINUINAE Schileyko, 1998 (Gastropoda) Op. 2018
Buliminus Beck, 1837 (Gastropoda) Op. 2018
BULIMINUSIDAE Kobelt, 1880 (Gastropoda) Op. 2018

Camelus Linnaeus, 1758 (Mammalia) Op. 2059

cephalotes, Staphylinus, Gravenhorst, 1802 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
chaquensis, Leptodactylus, Cei, 1950 (Amphibia, Anura) Op. 2044
chelata, Aranea, O.F. Miller, 1764 (Arachnida) Op. 2049

Chorista Klug, 1836 (Mecoptera) Op. 2047

CHORISTEIDAE Verrill, 1882 (Gastropoda) Op. 2047

Choristes Carpenter in Dawson, 1872 (Gastropoda) Op. 2047
CHORISTIDAE Esben-Petersen, 1915 (Mecoptera) Op. 2047
CHORISTIDAE Verrill, 1882 (Gastropoda) Op. 2047

chrysis, Staphylinus, Bernhauer, 1936 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053

chrysis, Staphylinus, Gravenhorst, 1806 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053

Claria Kutikova, Markevich & Spiridonoy, 1990 (Rotifera) Op. 2032
CLARIAIDAE Kutikova, Markevich & Spiridonov, 1990 (Rotifera) Op. 2032
CLARIIDAE Kutikova, Markevich & Spiridonov, 1990 (Rotifera) Op. 2032
Cleobis Simon, 1879 (Arachnida) Op. 2050

clypeatus, Pagurus, Fabricius, 1787 (Decapoda) Op. 2052

cognatus, Philonthus, Sharp, 1876 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053

cognatus, Philonthus, Stephens, 1832 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
concinnus, Staphylinus, Gravenhorst, 1802 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
concinnus, Staphylinus, Marsham, 1802 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
cornutus, Oxytelus, Bernhauer, 1936 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053

cornutus, Oxytelus, Gravenhorst, 1802 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
crassicorne, Omalium, Lea, 1906 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053

Criconema Hofmanner & Menzel, 1914 (Nematoda) Op. 2046
Criconemoides Taylor, 1936 (Nematoda) Op. 2046

ctenopus, Halacarus, Gosse, 1855 (Arachnida) Op. 2051

320 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003

Datames Simon, 1879 (Arachnida) Op. 2050

debilis, Leptacinus, Cameron, 1950 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
debilis, Leptacinus, Erichson, 1839 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
denticolle, Omalium, Beck, 1817 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
denticolle, Omalium, Sharp, 1889 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
Diastylis Say, 1818 (Cumacea) Op. 2020

dimidiatus, Staphylinus, Laporte, 1835 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
Diplotrypa Nicholson, 1879 (Bryozoa) Op. 2042

edwardsii, Squalus, Schinz, 1822 (Chondrichthyes) Op. 2056

edwartsii, Squalus, Schinz, 1822 (Chondrichthyes) Op. 2056

elegans, Agrion, Vander Linden, 1823 (Odonata) Op. 2037

elegans, Choristes, Carpenter in Dawson, 1872 (Gastropoda) Op. 2047
elongata, Glassia, Davidson, 1881 (Brachiopoda) Op. 2022

ENIDAE Woodward, 1903 (1880) (Gastropoda) Op. 2018

equina, Antilope, Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1803 (Mammalia) Op. 2030
Eremobates Banks, 1900 (Arachnida) Op. 2050

Eremorhax Roewer, 1934 (Arachnida) Op. 2050

fabrilis, Aranea, Clerck, 1758 (Arachnida) Op. 2049

fasciata, Lebias, Valenciennes in Humboldt & Valenciennes, 1821 (Osteichthyes)
Op. 2057 ‘

ferus, Camelus bactrianus, Przewalski, 1878 (Mammalia) Op. 2027

ferus, Camelus dromedarius, Falk, 1786 (Mammalia) Op. 2027

ferus, Equus, Boddaert, 1785 (Mammalia) Op. 2027

fulvipes, Tachinus, Erichson, 1840 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053

garnonsii, Acentropus, Curtis, 1834 (Lepidoptera) Op. 2021
gaurus, Bos, Smith, 1827 (Mammalia) Op. 2027

gibelio, Cyprinus, Bloch, 1782 (Osteichthyes) Op. 2027
Glassia Davidson, 1881 (Brachiopoda) Op. 2022

gratus, Philonthus, Cameron, 1943 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
gratus, Philonthus, LeConte, 1863 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
guanicoe, Camelus, Miller, 1776 (Mammalia) Op. 2027
guernei, Eubostrichus, Certes, 1889 (Nematoda) Op. 2046

haemorrhoidalis, Philonthus, Brancsik, 1893 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
haemorrhoidalis, Philonthus, MacLeay, 1873 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
haemorrhoidalis, Staphylinus, Fabricius, 1801 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
haemorrhoidalis, Staphylinus, Germar, 1824 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
Halacarus Gosse, 1855 (Arachnida) Op. 2051

halotaeniai, Thalassema, \keda, 1901 (Echiura) Op. 2048

Helicter Pease, 1862 (Gastropoda) Op. 2017

Helicteres Beck, 1837 (Gastropoda) Op. 2017

HELICTERINAE Pease, 1870 (Gastropoda) Op. 2017
HIPPOPODIIDAE Cox, 1969 (Bivalvia) Op. 2036
HIPPOPODIIDAE Kolliker, 1853 (Hydrozoa) Op. 2036

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003

Hippopodium Sowerby, 1819 (Bivalvia) Op. 2036
HIPPOPODIUMIDAE Cox, 1969 (Bivalvia) Op. 2036
Hippopodius Quoy & Gaimard, 1827 (Hydrozoa) Op. 2036
hippopus, Gleba, Forsskal, 1776 (Hydrozoa) Op. 2036
HIPPOTRAGINAE Sundevall, 1845 (Mammalia) Op. 2030
Hippotragus Sundevall, 1845 (Mammalia) Op. 2030
Hippotragus Sundevall, 1846 (Mammalia) Op. 2030
hirtipennis, Quedius, Broun, 1915 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
hislopi, Parasuchus, Lydekker, 1885 (Reptilia) Op. 2045
humilis, Philonthus, Cameron, 1932 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
humilis, Philonthus, Erichson, 1840 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
hybridus, Philonthus, Cameron, 1930 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
hybridus, Philonthus, Erichson, 1840 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821 (Gastropoda) Op. 2034
HYDROBIIDAE Troschel, 1857 (Gastropoda) Op. 2034
HYDROBIINA Mulsant, 1844 (Coleoptera) Op. 2034
HYDROBIUSINA Mulsant, 1844 (Coleoptera) Op. 2034

Ikeda Wharton, 1913 (Echiura) Op. 2048

Ischnura Charpentier, 1840 (Odonata) Op. 2037
ISCHNURIDAE Simon, 1879 (Scorpiones) Op. 2037
ISCHNURINAE Fraser, 1957 (Odonata) Op. 2037

Karpinskii, Pareiasaurus, Amalitzky, 1922 (Reptilia) Op. 2025
karpinskyi, Pariasaurus, Watson, 1917 (Reptilia) Op. 2025
kattwinkeli, Alcelaphus, Schwarz, 1932 (Mammalia) Op. 2029

labrosus, Bulimus, Olivier, 1804 (Gastropoda) Op. 2018
Lebia Oken, 1817 (Osteichthyes) Op. 2057

Lebias Goldfuss, 1820 (Osteichthyes) Op. 2057

lepidus, Chiton, Reuss, 1860 (Polyplacophora) Op. 2033

leucodactyla, Alucita, Denis & Schiffermiller, 1775 (Lepidoptera) Op. 2041

leucophaea, Antilope, Pallas, 1766 (Mammalia) Op. 2030
lilljeborgi, Termes, SjOstedt, 1896 (Isoptera) Op. 2038

limbata, Galeodes, Lucas, 1835 (Arachnida) Op. 2050

Liocheles Sundevall, 1833 (Scorpiones) Op. 2037

LIOCHELIDAE Fet & Bechly, 2001 (1879) (Scorpiones) Op. 2037
Lissatrypa Twenhofel, 1914 (Brachiopoda) Op. 2022

litoreus, Staphylinus, Broun, 1880 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053

littoreus, Staphylinus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053

lupus, Canis, Linnaeus, 1758 (Mammalia) Op. 2027

MACROPODIDAE Gray, 1821 (Mammalia) Op. 2058
MACROPODINAE Hoedeman, 1948 (Osteichthyes) Op. 2058
Macropodus Lacepéde, 1801 (Osteichthyes) Op. 2058
MACROPODUSINAE Hoedeman, 1948 (Osteichthyes) Op. 2058
Macrotermes Holmgren, 1909 (Isoptera) Op. 2038

322 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003

MACROTERMITINAE Kemner, 1934 (Isoptera) Op. 2038
maculosus, Staphylinus, Gravenhorst, 1802 (Coleoptera) Op. 2039
magna, Datames, Hancock, 1888 (Arachnida) Op. 2050

mandarina, Theophila, Moore, 1872 (Lepidoptera) Op. 2027
marchei, Micracanthus, Sauvage, 1879 (Osteichthyes) Op. 2043
marginata, Bulimina, d’ Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminifera) Op. 2018
marginatum, Omalium, Cameron, 1941 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
marginatum, Omalium, Say, 1832 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
marginatus, Staphylinus, Cameron, 1944 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
marginatus, Staphylinus, Miller, 1764 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
Megalotragus Van Hoepen, 1932 (Mammalia) Op. 2029

meigenii, Chlorops, Loew, 1866 (Diptera) Op. 2040

melanocephalus, Oxyporus, Kirshenblat, 1938 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
melanocephalus, Staphylinus, Fabricius, 1787 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
Micracanthus Sauvage, 1879 (Osteichthyes) Op. 2043

mimulus, Philonthus, Sharp, 1874 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053

minuta, Valvata, Draparnaud, 1805 (Gastropoda) Op. 2035
minutus, Xantholinus, Coiffait, 1962 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
montanus, Philonthus, Bernhauer, 1934 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
morgense, Criconema, Hofmanner & Menzel, 1914 (Nematoda) Op. 2046
mutus, Poephagus, Przewalski, 1883 (Mammalia) Op. 2027

niger, Aigocerus, Harris, 1838 (Mammalia) Op. 2030

nigriceps, Philonthus, Eppelsheim, 1885 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
nigrum, Omalium, Coiffait, 1982 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053

nigrum, Omalium, Gravenhorst, 1806 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
nitidulus, Staphylinus, Fabricius, 1781 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
nitidulus, Staphylinus, Gravenhorst, 1802 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
Nymphula Schrank, 1802 (Lepidoptera) Op. 2021
NYMPHULINAE Duponchel, 1845 (Lepidoptera) Op. 2021

occidentalis, Sceloporus, Baird & Girard; 1852 (Reptilia) Op. 2024
ochrodactyla, Alucita, Denis & Schiffermiuller, 1775 (Lepidoptera) Op. 2041
orientalis, Ovis, Gmelin, 1774 (Mammalia) Op. 2027

pallipes, Galeodes, Say, 1823 (Arachnida) Op. 2050
Parasuchus Lydekker, 1885 (Reptilia) Op. 2045

Pardosa C.L. Koch, 1847 (Arachnida) Op. 2049

parvulus, Oxytelus, Mulsant & Rey, 1861 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
Pelidnota MacLeay, 1819 (Coleoptera) Op. 2054

Pentodon Hope, 1837 (Coleoptera) Op. 2054

petropolitana, Dianulites, Dybowski, 1877 (Bryozoa) Op. 2042
petropolitana, Diplotrypa, Nicholson, 1879 (Bryozoa) Op. 2042
petropolitana, Favosites, Pander, 1830 (Bryozoa) Op. 2042
piceus, Tachinus, Cameron, 1932 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
piceus, Xantholinus, Cameron, 1926 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
picipennis, Philonthus, Heer, 1839 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003

picipennis, Philonthus, Maklin, 1852 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
Pipistrellus Kaup, 1829 (Mammalia) Op. 2028

pipistrellus, Vespertilio, Schreber, 1774 (Mammalia) Op. 2028
podoliensis, Polonograptus, Pribyl, 1983 (Graptolithina) Op. 2023
Polonograptus Tsegelnjuk, 1976 (Graptolithina) Op. 2023
ponderosum, Hippopodium, Sowerby, 1819 (Bivalvia) Op. 2036
primigenius, Bos, Bojanus, 1827 (Mammalia) Op. 2027

priscus, Bubalis, Broom, 1909 (Mammalia) Op. 2029

producta, Achatinella, Reeve, 1850 (Gastropoda) Op. 2017
propinquus, Philonthus, Cameron, 1933 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
propinquus, Philonthus, Sharp, 1876 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
punctatellus, Philonthus, Heer, 1839 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
punctatellus, Philonthus, Horn, 1884 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
punctatus, Scarabaeus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Coleoptera) Op. 2054
punctatus, Scarabaeus, Villers, 1789 (Coleoptera) Op. 2054
punctipennis, Staphylinus, Solier, 1849 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
purpurascens, Staphylinus, Cameron, 1920 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
purpurascens, Staphylinus, Nordmann, 1837 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
putorius, Mustela, Linnaeus, 1758 (Mammalia) Op. 2027
pygmaeus, Staphylinus, Paykull, 1800 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
pygmaeus, Vespertilio, Leach, 1825 (Mammalia) Op. 2028

rathkii, Cuma, Kroyer, 1841 (Cumacea) Op. 2020

Rhynotragus Reck, 1925 (Mammalia) Op. 2029

rivularis, Philonthus, Cameron, 1932 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
rivularis, Philonthus, Kiesenwetter, 1858 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
robustum, Omalium, Broun, 1911 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
robustum, Omalium, Heer, 1839 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
rufipennis, Staphylinus, Cameron, 1930 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
rufipennis, Staphylinus, Fabricius, 1801 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
rufipennis, Staphylinus, Gravenhorst, 1802 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
rufum, Omalium, Sachse, 1852 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053

rugosus, Cenobita, Milne Edwards, 1837 (Decapoda) Op. 2052

saltatrix, Cleobis, Simon, 1879 (Arachnida) Op. 2050
Scutosaurus Hartmann-Weinberg, 1930 (Reptilia) Op. 2025

323

segmentata, Claria, Kutikova, Markevich & Spiridonov, 1990 (Rotifera) Op. 2032

semiticus, Rhynotragus, Reck, 1925 (Mammalia) Op. 2029
silvestris, Felis catus, Schreber, 1777 (Mammalia) Op. 2027
stagnata, Phalaena, Donovan, 1806 (Lepidoptera) Op. 2021
stannii, Akrostomum, Grube, 1840 (Nemertea) Op. 2016

taeniaides, Thalassema, Ikeda, 1902 (Echiura) Op. 2048
taenioides, Thalassema, Ikeda, 1904 (Echiura) Op. 2048
tectus, Ptinus, Boieldieu, 1856 (Coleoptera) Op. 2055
terminalis, Staphylinus, Erichson, 1839 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
terminalis, Staphylinus, Laporte, 1840 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
testaceus, Staphylinus, Fabricius, 1801 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053

324 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003

tetradactyla, Phalaena, Linnaeus, 1758 (Lepidoptera) Op. 2041
Thalassarachna Packard, 1871 (Arachnida) Op. 2051

thoracicus, Staphylinus, Gravenhorst, 1802 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
tomentosus, Staphylinus, Gravenhorst, 1802 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
tridactyla, Phalaena, Linnaeus, 1758 (Lepidoptera) Op. 2041
typica, Leptodactylus, Cei, 1948 (Amphibia, Anura) Op. 2044

unicolor, Quedius, Kiesenwetter, 1847 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053

Valdivianemertes Stiasny-Winhoft, 1923 (Nemertea) Op. 2016
Ventrosia Radoman, 1977 (Gastropoda) Op. 2034

ventrosus, Turbo, Montagu, 1803 (Gastropoda) Op. 2034

vicugna, Camelus, Molina, 1782 (Mammalia) Op. 2027

viduatus, Staphylinus, Fabricius, 1801 (Coleoptera) Op. 2039
viduus, Philonthus, Cameron, 1933 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053

viduus, Philonthus, Erichson, 1840 (Coleoptera) Op. 2053
violaceus, Staphylinus, Gravenhorst, 1802 (Coleoptera) Op. 2039
violascens, Coenobita, Heller, 1862 (Decapoda) Op. 2052
viridiauratus, Macropodus, Lacepede, 1801 (Osteichthyes) Op. 2058

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003 325

KEY NAMES IN APPLICATIONS AND COMMENTS PUBLISHED IN
VOLUME 60 (2003)
(for names in Rulings of the Commission see pages 318-324)

Page
Acmaeodera Eschscholtz, 1829 (Coleoptera) ...........2... 31, 217
Acmaeoderella Cobos, 1955 (Coleoptera). ............2... 31, 217
Aegorhinus Erichson, 1834 (Coleoptera) ............2...... 144
aenea, Libellula, Linnaeus, 1758 (Odonata). .......2.2.2.2.2.2.22.. 272
africanus, Vespertilio pipistrellus, Rippell, 1842 (Mammalia) ..... . 42, 314
akersi, Clavigerinella, Bolli, Loeblich & Tappan, 1957 (Rhizopoda) .... . 182
aldrovandella, Tinea, Villers, 1789 (Lepidoptera) .............. 290
amphibius, Thinobius, Notman, 1921 (Coleoptera) ............. 287
antinous, Papilio, Donovan, 1805 (Lepidoptera) .............. 311
aruensis, Polycesta, Obenberger, 1924 (Coleoptera). ............ 124
attelaboides, Rhinomacer, Fabricius, 1787 (Coleoptera) ........... 275
australis, Damon, Simon, 1886 (Arachnida) ................ 188
australis, Nematois, Heydenreich, 1851 (Lepidoptera). ........... 290
bassanii, Colobodus, de Alessandri, 1910 (Osteichthyes)........... 135
bicolor, Zeria, Pocock, 1897 (Arachnida). ........2.2..2...2.2.2.. 26
Bolbocerasmkarby- lSl9i(Coleoptera) earns Pence ies Gucnia noes 303
bremii, Termopsis, Heer, 1849 (Isoptera) ................ 119, 303
Callopistes Gravenhorst, 1837 (Reptilia) ........2.2.2.. 38, 58, 220, 313
GanentissPavesi, 897i(Arachnida))ypueee i fen) deeee sues eey 2 see 26
eaona, Clone, Gren, IB75 (Romie) . 5 5.0.000005000800c50000 99
challengeri, Antedon, Clark, 1907 (Echinodermata) ..........2... 293
chilensis, Scorpio, Molina, 1782 (Arachnida) ................ 113
chitra, Chitra, Nutaphand, 1986 (Reptilia) ................. 208
Chrysodema Laporte & Gory, 1835 (Coleoptera)... ............ 53
CIMBERIDAE Gozis, 1882 (Coleoptera) ................. 275
CIMBERIDIDAE Gozis, 1882 (Coleoptera)... ........2..2.2.. DS)
GimberiskGozisy \88ily(Coleoptera) yee eee eee) ne 275
circellaris, Aleochara, Gravenhorst, 1806 (Coleoptera) ......... 28, 191
Clavigerinella Bolli, Loeblich & Tappan, 1957 (Rhizopoda)......... 182
Ghopinunacusssli/ Gya(Rteropoda)s Ae ae ee eae) ae 99
CLIOIDAE Jeffreys, 1869 (Pteropoda) ................... 99
GlionayGrant-wl82 6(Roritera) Pee soe ek a a ee 99
CLIONAIDAE d@’Orbigny, 1851 (Porifera). ................. 99
Ciitone Pallas, WE (Ris oOC) 5 55 6 oo kt ee Oe oe So 99
CLIONIDAE Rafinesque, 1815 (Pteropoda) ................. 99
CLIONIDAE dOrbigny, 1851 (Porifera) .................. 99
Colobodus Agassiz, 1844 (Osteichthyes) .................. 135
concolor, Macropodus opercularis, Ahl, 1937 (Osteichthyes) ....... 206, 220
CONIDOPHRYIDAE Kirby, 1941 (Ciliophora)... ........2... 266

Conidophrys Chatton & Lwoff, 1934 (Ciliophora) .........2.... 266

326 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003

coombii, Cypraea, Sowerby in Dixon, 1850 (Gastropoda) .......... 218
crinifer, Thinobius, Smetana, 1959 (Coleoptera). .............. 287
cupriacella, Tinea, Hubner, 1819 (Lepidoptera). ............... 54
curvicostata, Melania, Reeve, 1861 (Gastropoda) ............ 109, 300
cylindrica, Buprestis, Fabricius, 1775 (Coleoptera) ........... Shi, ZAl7/
@ylopisaliaaPace 982i (Coleoptera) ean eae eee ee eee ee 19]
Cyphosoma Mannerheim, 1837 (Coleoptera) ................ 143
Dendrophyllia Blainville, 1830 (Anthozoa) .................. 49
deserticola, Polycesta, Barr, 1974 (Coleoptera) ............... 124
difformis, Homalota, Mulsant & Rey, 1853 (Coleoptera) .......... 191]
digitata, Hastigerina, Rhumbler, 1911 (Rhizopoda)............. 182
Dilophaspis Traquair in Walther, 1903 (Malacostraca) ........... 269
discoidea, Buprestis, Fabricius, 1787 (Coleoptera)... ......... Sls AT
Ellipsoma Millard, 1997 (Gastropoda) ................... 103
Ellipsostoma Agassiz, 1846 (Gastropoda) ................. 103
Ellipstoma Rafinesque, 1818 (Gastropoda) ................. 103
erbocyathidae Vologdin & Zhuravleva, 1956 (Archaeocyatha) ........ 12
Erbocyathus Zhuravleva, 1955 (Archaeocyatha) ............... 12
eurymedon, Papilio, Lucas, 1852 (Lepidoptera)... ............ 311
ByanystessGistels 1856)(Coleoptera)) yee eee nee eee 28
flavomaculata, Libellula, Vander Linden, 1825 (Odonata) .......... 272
fluviatilis, Mytilus, Gmelin, 1791 (Bivalvia). ...........2...2... 20
foveolatus, Hydroporus, Heer, 1839 (Coleoptera) ...........2... 284
Galaxcai@keny 8ilSsn(Anthozoa) aaa ene eee 49
geniculata, Lithasia, Haldeman, 1840 (Gastropoda). ............ 103
geniculata, Rhamphomyia, Meigen, 1830 (Diptera) ............. 203
Geostiba Mhomsonwlls58i(Coleoptera) Nae, ee ene 28, 191
gisortiana, Ovula, Passy, 1859 (Gastropoda) ................ 218
grandicollis, Thinobius, Notman, 1921 (Coleoptera). ............ 287
gyllenhali, Lyda, Dahlbom, 1835 (Hymenoptera) ............... 34
Halecia Laporte & Gory, 1837 (Coleoptera) ................ 143
Hastigerinella Cushman, 1927 (Rhizopoda) ................ 182
heterovallum, Polycyathus, Vologdin, 1928 (Archaeocyatha). ......... 12
ignitus, Brachys, Gory & Laporte, 1840 (Coleoptera) ............ 132
InidotaeniasDeyrolles 8 645(Coleoptera) eas eee ee eee 53
ISOMETRAINAE Clark, 1917 (Echinodermata). ............. 293
ISOMETRINAE Kraepelin, 1891 (Arachnida) ............... 293
ISOMETRINAE Clark, 1917 (Echinodermata) ........:..2.:.:. 293
janii, Achatina, De Betta & Martinati, 1855 (Gastropoda) .......... 51

johnstonii, Titanodamon, Pocock, 1894 (Arachnida). ............ 188

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003 327

lata, Dilophaspis, Traquair in Walther, 1903 (Malacostraca) ........ 269
laticauda, Rhopalurus, Thorell, 1876 (Arachnida) ............... 23
lennjiroras, yale, also, 30S (IShmneNO OI) 5 os oo 6 5 6 6 eb oo ho 34
lepturoides, Rhinomacer, Fabricius, 1801 (Coleoptera) ........... 275
Lenina Kier, ISO (COWOTIORD) os coco se oso bb oo oboe 19]
lnaacine, Clo, \avyoyos, NTA (RISO OCH) oo os 5 6 5 oe bo eo 99
iiithasiaatialdeman 840) (Gastropoda) seen een ence ene 103
/Lings Cnevrolae, Iss (Coleone) 25 66 a5 5 6 bo ho eh a 132
/Lipis \Deyirollles SOS (COBONE)) 5 250690000504 000 boo oc 132
raacuiana, Wing, ‘ere, 92 (Niemi) 5 5656565055565 Foo ooo 45
yoaculicna, Winrar, Gray, ssxX0) (Mleraninee) 5 4 6 5 6 oo 6 0 6 6 6 oo 6 45
maculatus, Callopistes, Gravenhorst, 1837 (Reptilia) ...... 38, 58, 220, 313
macninin, Sconoo, \DxGear, 7/3 (Arana), 5 ob tt oe ep 293
melanus, Galeodes, Olivier, 1807 (Arachnida). ............... 117
Microscoras Desai, 1333} (COle@sIeR) ss 6 5 6 6b oc oo oo oo oo 281
IMionCrTAES ROSE, DIS (WSO). 2 gos 6 co toe oe eo 8 119, 303
Miessa Oem, WSIS (AVMINCHOA) 52 oc op > oo eto oe eo 49
MycodiniumAvennzetis 196) (Ciliophora) seen ses ees eee 266
NahecanismackelsnlO2ila(Malacostraca)) ismneiene Auntie ene ann nent anne 269
NAnUSVESp entiliom eters alSo2) (Maramalia) sien eer teh cream tena: 42, 314
NEMONMEHIDAE Bedelal882\(Coleoptera)) 5 52 95 a6 6 oa: DS
Nemonyx Redtenbacher, 1845 (Coleoptera) ................ 275
Neocimberis O’Brien & Wibmer, 1982 (Coleoptera). ............ 275
Higen@Apnodiuslliseram 9 8s(Coleoptera) eeu een ncaa 127
Nicene canrabacussnanzera li Oia (Coleoptera) wae a eee ale 127
MIVGLISs Ey AnOPOVUsmAcemwls39) (Coleoptera) eae nears) een eee Ce 284
oaxacae, Acmaeodera, Fisher, 1949 (Coleoptera) .............. 124
OCHKAGCUSUNTONS AyARUSIViA (Bivalvia) ates en een ene ee 20
ochripennis, Staphylinus, Ménétriés, 1832 (Coleoptera) ........... 281
OdonteussSamouellewisiO(Coleoptera) ee eee cn acne ene 303
ophiocomae, Rhopalura, Giard, 1877 (Orthonectida) ............. 23
palluma, Lucerta, Molina, 1782 (Reptilia) ........... 38, 58, 220, 313
PaaS IO, IGS (DINE) so coo oo 5 oo oo Goo OO 53
Parapisalia Scheerpeltz, 1966 (Coleoptera) ................. 19]
Ravarhanphonylapkneyaal9225 (Diptera) aetna Cnt eer acre en ien le 203
paupercula, Goniobasis, Lea, 1862 (Gastropoda) ........... . 109, 300
PACMORGITUS \LOGW, NSO (DINER) 2565 5 oo boo eo oe UO 53
PhakelliagBowenbankeslS62) (2onitera) aaeieeenis a enn eee ae 16, 300
phasianoides, Palaeortyx, Milne-Edwards, 1869 (Aves) ........... 211
philippinensis, Acmaeodera, Obenberger, 1924 (Coleoptera) ......... 124
Phymaturus Gravenhorst, 1837 (Reptilia) ........... 38, 58, 220, 313
picipes-Curculio. Marshams 8 021(Coleoptera) 5 29a) 6 4s 5 ee: 196

pilisuctor, Conidophrys, Chatton & Lwoff, 1934 (Ciliophora) ........ 266

328 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003

plebeja- Viuscamibinnacussly/ Si iptera) ieee enn eee 198
Pluralicyathus Okulitch, 1950 (Archaeocyatha) ................ 12
Polycyathus Vologdin, 1928 (Archaeocyatha). ................ 12
Poritesmbinkwl8 07 (Anthozoa) ieee ene ee 49
RristipteraaDejcanas 635i (Coleoptcia) seen Cee nenCnen ean ene 143
RrocasStepuensslosile (Coleoptera) seen een enn ane 196
PROGCCHUS WHEN MOpSIS mricctemls49) (ISOptera) ae ae eee ee ene 119, 303
Psuchocephalus Latreille, 1828 (Coleoptera) ......-.......... 144
pulchella, Bolitochara, Mannerheim, 1830 (Coleoptera) ........... 19]
pyramidata, Clio, Limnaeus, 17/67 (Pteropoda) ................ 99
RhagodesRocockeagls 9ia(Acachnida) saan aeen rn 117
RhamphormyiaNicigens 8221 (Diptera) seen ene 203
RhosaHenmannael(s 047 (Arachnida) ieee ee en 117
iRhinomacer,Babriciuss lWsla(Coleoptera) wanes ae eee 275
RHINOMACERIDES Schoenherr, 1823 (Coleoptera) ........... 275
Rhopalural Girard S8iiA(Oxrthonectida) ayaa knee 23
RHOPALURIDAE Stunkard, 1837 (Orthonectida) .........2.... 23
RHOPALURINAE Biicherl, 1971 (Arachnida) ..........2.2.2.2.. 23
iRhopalurusmlinore easy G1 (Arachnid) eee 23
RHOPALURUSINAE Biicherl, 1971 (Arachnida) ..........2.... 23
ruspoltina Canentis» bavesia lsOi (Arachnida) eames ee lene ene 26
selenkaemGhitrawaekeleal Sik (Reptilia) ileal eee eae 208
Sipalia Mulsant & Rey, 1853 (Coleoptera) ..............-.... 191
sonnerati, Chrysodema, Laporte & Gory, 1835 (Coleoptera). ......... 53
spechti, Macropodus opercularis, Schreitmiller, 1936 (Osteichthyes) . . . 206, 220
Sinizosas Spongias ballasselW/66) (Roritera) Sanemeie eh ee eee 16, 300
stuertzi, Nahecaris, Jackel, 1921 (Malacostraca) ....:......... 269
sulcatamHmpisy Meigensgl 822) (Diptera) aesemeeeteneee-a e 203
tardussMhinobiusssNotmans 921i (Coleoptera) eee eee 287
TERMOPSIDAE Holmgren, 1911 (Isoptera) ............. 119, 303
Hherevanleatrelles iW Oia (Diptera) iene nee ne ene 198
iihereyarkabnicissld/9 81 (Diptera) mee es enn ene 198
MEHMOpSisMLCeInkS4 9) (ISOptera)) hea eee en 119, 303
veneta, Achatina, Strobel, 1855 (Gastropoda). ................- 51
ventilabrum, Spongia, Linnaeus, 1767 (Porifera) ............ 16, 300
violellus, Nemotois, Herrich-Schaeffer in Stainton, 1851 (Lepidoptera) .... . 54
wenckeri, Thinobius, Fauvel, 1863 (Coleoptera). .............-. 287

Cr iASSAPROCOGKa SOA (Arachnida) ieee eae 26

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003 329

INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS

The following notes are primarily for those preparing applications to the Commis-
sion; other authors should comply with the relevant sections. Applications should be
prepared in the format of recent parts of the Bulletin; manuscripts not prepared in
accordance with these guidelines may be returned.

General. Applications are requests to the Commission to set aside or modify the
Code’s provisions as they relate to a particular name or group of names when this
appears to be in the interest of stability of nomenclature. Authors submitting cases
should regard themselves as acting on behalf of the zoological community and the
Commission will treat all applications on this basis. Applicants should discuss their
cases with other workers in the same field before submitting applications, so that they
are aware of any wider implications and the likely reactions of other zoologists.

Text. Typed in double spacing, this should consist of numbered paragraphs setting
out the details of the case and leading to a final paragraph of formal proposals to the
Commission. Text references should give dates and pages in parentheses, e.g. ‘Daudin
(1800, p. 49) described ...’. The Abstract will be prepared by the Commission’s
Secretariat.

References. These should be given for all authors cited. Where possible, ten or more
reasonably recent references should be given illustrating the usage of names which are
to be conserved or given precedence over older names. The title of periodicals should
be in full and in italics; numbers of volumes, parts, etc. should be in arabic figures,
separated by a colon from page numbers. Book titles should be in italics and followed
by the number of pages and plates, the publisher and place of publication. More
detailed instructions on the preparation of references are given in BZN 59: 159-160.

Submission of Application. One copy should be sent to: Executive Secretary, the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History
Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. It would help to reduce the time
it takes to process the large number of applications received if the typescript could be
accompanied by a disk with copy in IBM PC compatible format, or the script sent via
e-mail to ‘iczn@nhm.ac.uk’ within the message or as an attachment (disks and
attachments to be in Word, rtf or ASCII text). It would also be helpful if applications
were accompanied by photocopies of relevant pages of the main references where this
is possible.

The Commission’s Secretariat is very willing to advise on all aspects of the
formulation of an application.

330 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003

PUBLICATION DATES AND PAGINATION OF VOLUME 60 (2003)

Part No. Pages in Part Date of publication
1-92 31 March 2003
2 93-176 30 June 2003
3 177-260 30 September 2003
4 261-330 18 December 2003

INSTRUCTIONS TO BINDER

The present volume should be bound up as follows:
Title page, Table of Contents (I-VII), 1-330

Note: the covers of the four parts should be bound with the volume

Contents — continued

On the proposed conservation of the specific name Papilio eurymedon Lucas, 1852
(Insecta, Lepidoptera). A. Wakeham-Dawson; N.L. Evenhuis .

On the proposed conservation of usage of the names Phymaturus Caner: 1837
and Lacerta palluma Molina, 1782 (currently Phymaturus palluma; Reptilia,
Sauria) by oeup ene ofa ae for Lacerta eee A. Veloso, H. Nufiez &
J.M. Cei :

On the proposed conservation of ‘ine saesitic name fai Vesper nil, nanus pbeters 1352
(currently Pipistrellus nanus; Mammalia, Chiroptera). V. Van Cakenberghe

Indexes, etc.

Authors in volume 60 (2003) I :

Names placed on the Official Lists and dees | in rulings of he Commission
published in volume 60 (2003) . F

Key names in Applications and Comments mblioneds: in volume 60 (2003) .

Information and Instructions for Authors :

Publication dates and pagination of volume 60 (2003).

Instructions to binder .

Table of Contents of volume 60 (2003)

311

CONTENTS

Page
Notices . : E 261
New applications to the Conmmiesen 261
The International Commission on Zoological Nesrena eine pad its aihein ons 262
Declaration 44 — Amendment of Article 74.7.3 . 263
Financial Report for 2002 264
Applications
Conidophrys Chatton & Lwoff, 1934 (Ciliophora, Pilisuctorida): oo conser-
vation. I.V. Dovgal . : DS nes 266
Nahecaris Jaekel, 1921 (eliconees Phyllocarida, A agiaces een proposed
precedence over 2 Traquair in Walther, 1903. D.E.G. Briggs &
C, Bartels . : 269
Libellula aenea Uneete. 1758 (ommenie Condi denen nad L Vive
Vander Linden, 1825 (currently Somatochlora flavomaculata; Insecta, Odonata):
proposed conservation of usage of the specific names by the replacement of
the lectotype of L. aenea with a newly designated lectotype. R. Jédicke &
J. van Tol 272
NEMONYCHIDAE Bedel, November 1882 (essa Goleape a), srayeased eetene
over CIMBERIDIDAE Gozis, March 1882, and Cimberis Gozis, 1881: Pers
conservation. C.H.C. Lyal & M.A. Alonso-Zarazaga . 275
Microsaurus Dejean, 1833 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed concemanen eo usage oe
designation of Staphylinus ochripennis Meénétriés, 1832 as the type species.
A. Smetana . 281
Hydroporus foveolatus we 1839 Gucci. Céleseeeae oe paseaiienes ai the
specific name over Hydroporus nivalis Heer, 1839. H.V. Shaverdo & M.A. Jach . 284
Thinobius crinifer Smetana, 1959 (Insecta, Coleoptera): propose! conservation of the
specific name. M. Schiilke : 287
Nematois australis Heydenreich, 1851 Ganeaiy Ae austr ABs inceees iba
ptera): proposed precedence over Tinea aldrovandella Villers, 1789. M.V. Kozloy
& E.J. van Nieukerken . 290
ISOMETRINAE Clark, 1917 Goines, Gino) gronased sneniaion oe
spelling to ISOMETRAINAE to remove homonymy with ISOMETRINAE Kraepelin, 1891
(Arachnida, Scorpiones). V. Fet & C. Messing 293
Comments :
On Zoological Record and registration of new Thames in zoology. D.J. Patterson,
D. Remsen & C. Norton . 297
On the proposed conservation of the elie. name sf and desman sea a neo-
type for cee ventilabrum Linnaeus, 1767 a Phakellia ventilabrum;
Porifera). B. Alvarez & R.C. Willan. é 300
On the proposed conservation of Melania curvicostata Rees. 1861 ond Go tdine
paupercula Lea, 1862 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) by the designation of a neotype for
Melania curvicostata (Reeve, 1861). W.E. Holznagel; L.B. Holthuis; A.E. Bogan;
D.L. Graf; R.L. Minton; D. Kadolsky. 300
On the proposed conservation of prevailing usage oa TERMOPSIDAE eigmnenee.
1911, Termopsis Heer, 1849 and Miotermes Rosen, 1913 (Insecta, Isoptera).
M.A. Alonso-Zarazaga . 303
On the proposed precedence of Bolbecera as Karby, 1819 (uly) (ases: @aleaprera)
over Odonteus Samouelle, 1819 (June). F.-T. Krell, S. Ziani & A. Ballerio . 303
7697 5995, 5 TF Continued on Inside Back Cover
16/11/66 Va

Printed in the United Kingdom by Henry Ling Limited, at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, DT] 1HD

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION LI :

Mi

6326